McDonald v Chicago
Otis McDonald was an old man in the Chicagoland area living in a dangerous neighborhood. He wanted to protect himself by buying a handgun that he could use efficiently in case of an intruder. However, handgun registration was frozen after a ban by the city of Chicago. After being ruled against in the circuit court, McDonald brought his Second Amendment (right to bear arms) argument to the Supreme Court.
Breakdown Verdict.
A 5-4 majority reversed the ruling of the circuit court and determined that self-protection is a liberty that came with the creation of the country. Authoring Justice Alito determined the right to bear arms as “a substantive guarantee” that did not only extend to citizen militias as mentioned in the constitutional clause. However, gun bans for certain people and in certain places—such as schools—are still justified and maintain a proper relationship between the people and access to firearms. This verdict was reached with Selective Incorporation, where provisions of the Bill of Rights are applied to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Result Going Forward.
McDonald v Chicago eliminated the outright bans of handguns at local levels, ending a decades-long restriction that impaired the safety of residents in Chicago. The case brought along with it many different cases regarding what is legal when it comes to carrying or purchasing handguns. The “avalanche” of litigation comes to show that the case did not bring absolute freedom with firearms, but it took the first step toward personal liberty.
Do you agree with the verdict?
0%
0%