Untitled Flashcards Set

McDonald v. Chicago: Bill of right case (right to bear arms) - The question in Mcdonald was whether the second amendment applied to the state - The city of Chicago had adopted a ban on handguns in the home similar to washington d.c - The supreme court expanded states and localities an ever-expanding list of the bill of right protection that were originally intended to apply only to the fed gov - b/c it had interpreted the 14 amendment assertion that no state can deny equal protection and due process of law to mean that many critical bill right protection must extend to the state - Justice samuel alito noted self-defense is fundamental right ; the right to bear arms was considered no less fundamental by those who drafted and ratified the bill of rights therefore it is important to be included in the states to - Alito said that although it is dangerous to allow people to have handguns in their homes that it is not the only controversial safety implications - If a fundamental right exist we can not take it away just b/c it can pose some danger - In the dissent: justice stevens denied that chicago law constitution the denial of fundamental rights → chicago did not deny the right of the citizen to own weapons even handguns it simply just said they can not keep them in the house