McDonald v. Chicago | Homework Help from the Bill of Rights Institute
Does the Second Amendment prevent a city from effectively outlawing handgun ownership? In 2008, Otis McDonald attempted to purchase a handgun for self-defense purposes in a Chicago suburb. However, the city of Chicago had banned handgun ownership in 1982 when it passed a law that prevented issuing handgun registrations. McDonald argued this law violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause as well as the Due Process Clause. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that McDonald’s Second Amendment right to bear arms was protected at the state and local level by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
0:00 Male Presenter: In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that an individual’s right to bear arms as a citizen of the country also protected them against state laws banning guns. Female Presenter: On what basis was the case decided? This is the story of McDonald v. Chicago. [music]
0:29 Male Presenter: In 2008, various neighborhoods in inner-city Chicago were experiencing a sharp decline. Plagued with crime and violence, many citizens hoped to defend themselves. Female Presenter: One of these citizens was 76-year-old Otis McDonald, a retired mechanical engineer who hoped to ride out his twilight years in the Morgan Park neighborhood where he had lived since 1971.
0:51 With his own property having been broken into five times, McDonald sought to purchase a handgun, but he was required to register the gun with the city. Male Presenter: However, this wasn’t so easy. In 1982, Chicago passed the handgun ban and refused to issue any more registrations, but McDonald saw that it’s his Second Amendment right as an American to be able to purchase a gun.
1:13 Female Presenter: Along with three other Chicagoans, he sued, went through the court system, and eventually had his case ruled before the Supreme Court. Male Presenter: A legal showdown highlighting perhaps our most controversial amendment awaited with McDonald positioned front and center. Female Presenter: McDonald’s attorney was 39-year-old litigator, Alan Gura.
1:34 Gura argued that the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment should be interpreted to extend the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms to the state level, a process known as incorporation, so that city or state regulations could not infringe on that right. Male Presenter: He also argued that when the city of Chicago banned firearms, they had violated McDonald’s
1:55 14th Amendment right to due process. Female Presenter: The opposition came by way of Attorney James Feldman. Feldman, an experienced Supreme Court litigator, defended Chicago’s power to enact their own gun policies. Male Presenter: He argued that owning a handgun is not an individual right protected under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause. Female Presenter: Both sides presented
2:16 strong arguments and tensions were high. Male Presenter: It wasn’t a landslide. In a split five to four ruling, the supreme court declared that the due process clause does, in fact, incorporate the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. Female Presenter: Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority that gun ownership was an American’s fundamental right. Chicago’s handgun ban was lifted and McDonald, along with the citizens
2:39 of Chicago, could purchase handguns for self-defense. Male Presenter: The majority justices referred to the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller as precedent. In that case, Alan Gura had successfully argued to overturn Washington DC’s gun ban on Second Amendment grounds. Female Presenter: In the McDonald case, the majority decided that the right to self-defense applied on a state level as well.
3:02 Male Presenter: The senators held firm in their beliefs that local government should be able to wield powers within their boundaries as they see fit. Female Presenter: They argued that the Second Amendment did not include a general right to private self-defense and also that the Second Amendment should not be considered a fundamental right for purpose of incorporation. Male Presenter: The Supreme Court’s ruling led to
3:22 a reevaluation of multiple local and state gun control laws. It’s clear that gun ownership remains a divisive issue in our country. How long will it be before another case divides not only our supreme court but the dueling ideologies of American citizens? This was the story of McDonald v. Chicago.
3:44 If you guys found this video helpful, make sure that you like, comment, and subscribe.
