Mcdonald Vs Chicago Case Study

is given to the citizens that live in the US. This right as well as many

The second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of people to bear arms and was adopted in 1791. It guarantees all Americans "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is more described as supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Former Chief Justice of the United States, Warren E. Burger writes an essay regarding “The Right To Bear Arms,” that originally appeared in the Parade Magazine in the 1990’s that questions if “The Right To Bear Arms,” is an outdated idea. Burger argument is that the gun control would lower if handguns were lowered. He also talks about the”Militias,” which is an army that protects the security of the state. Our “State Militias,” in our time, serves as a huge national defense.

In the case of the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) a 5-4 decision in the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment was placed to protect a humans right to own a firearm. The firearm would be used for any self defense reasons for example, if ones from was invaded. Washington D.C was unable to address whether or not the Second Amendment protections are included by something known as the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The Due Process Clause helps protect individuals from being excluded from life, liberty and property. It also allows citizens to have privileges and not have certains once taken away from them. This was soon taken up by the case McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). This was the case to tackle whether the Second Amendment was actually established to have an individual bare arms for self defense.

United States is a country that has problems with gun control, and this issue has many debates between whether or not people should be allowed to carry a gun on them. This free county not only for speech and religion, but also allows people to have the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment of the United States was written by our Founding Fathers,“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (Government). The main purpose of the Second Amendment when our Founding Fathers wrote this amendment was to help the American citizens to defend themselves from the government at that time, and other countries from invading their properties. However,

The Supreme Court ruled on June 28th that the 2nd Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms applies on state and city levels. The 5-4 decision along ideological lines echoed 2008's decision to strike down DC's handgun ban, citing the 14th Amendment as a major factor in the decision to extend the federal right to own a hand gun for personal protection down to local levels. Though it officially returned McDonald v. City of Chicago to the lower courts for a decision, it is expected that Chicago's 28 year old handgun ban will be overturned, and that legislation against handgun restrictions in other states will be legally challenged for years to come.

The Second Amendment grants a United States citizen right of gun ownership to individuals for purposes that also include self-defense. In today’s modern day, citizens debate about whether the Second Amendment protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations such as the National Guard. However the Amendment was effectively acknowledged in light of. that the government should not have the ability the privilege of the general population to keep and carry weapons, any more than it to have the ability to shorten the right to speak freely or restrict the free practice of religion. The Second Amendment initially connected just to the national government, leaving the states to direct weapons as they saw fit.

The Second Amendment states that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. The way the Supreme Court interprets this amendment changes constantly because not even the Supreme Court fully understands the limits and rights given to citizens. Some argue that this amendment protects our right to own a gun, but is not very clear. Over the years the second amendment has become a huge debate over gun rights and gun control. This is a cause of all the gun violence this country has been facing for many years and they need a way to help prevent gun violence or even suppress the amount of deaths faced by these tragedies. One of the ways this

The second amendment of the constitution states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (Cornell Law) For over fifty years, the amendment has been interpreted to the courts that people individually do not have the right to own gun, but rather that this right is to be regulated by legislatives on the federal,

The Second Amendment states that “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.1 It is important to understand that the Second Amendment was created in order to allow the American people to form militias in response to a tyrannical government attempting to suppress the American way of life. In order for Americans to form militias, they must uphold their freedom to bear arms as a

Through the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court sets their first precedent concerning the Second Amendment’s protection of an individual’s right to possess firearms for self-defense by establishing the individual right of gun ownership for lawful purposes. The Court grants this interpretation of the Second Amendment after the U.S. Circuit Courts have set a six decade precedent of rejecting challenges to federal regulation of firearms with few exceptions under the United States v. Miller (1939) decision. Fox News Channel’s senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano, writing in defense of this decision, states that self-defense using firearms is a natural right enshrined by the Second Amendment, and that historical precedents of using guns to successfully defend against tyrants justify the current need for guns, not only for recreational activities such as hunting deer, but also for weapons with sufficient power to defend against enemies with equal effectiveness. Furthermore, supporters interpret the Second Amendment to apply to the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. However, based on the preamble to the Amendment, historical context, and the precedent case United States v. Miller, the Second Amendment intends to protect the right of people in a militia to keep and bear arms and does not preclude federal restriction of individual firearm ownership, especially considering the changes to the structure of the American militia and military

Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm to use for lawful purposes, such as defending oneself within their home/property. The court case ruled that the Amendment was not connected to service in a militia (Constitution). Handgun possession is banned under District of Columbia law. This law prohibits the registration of handguns and makes it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm; additionally, all lawfully owned firearms must be kept unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock unless they are being used for lawful recreational activities or located in a place of business.

The debate over the right to bear arms according to the Second Amendment has been a hotly contested issue for many years in American history. The matter has been one of the most controversial issues in the second half of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first; disputed between politicians on the liberal and conservative side along with issues such as abortion, capital punishment, and gay marriage. The Supreme Court has officially defined the controversial Second Amendment by stating that states have the right to maintain a militia separate from a federally controlled army (Gale Encyclopedia, pg. 155-162). However, “Courts have consistently held that the state and federal governments may lawfully regulate the sale, transfer,

In recent years, there have been many stories of shootings taken place across various parts of the United States, all of which bring up the highly volatile topic of gun control. Unlike many other wealthy countries, such as the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, and Australia, where gun ownership is strictly regulated, by in large-the US has very little universal gun control laws throughout the nation. This great controversy is based on the Constitutional right of the Second Amendment, stating, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Though this is a Constitutional right, unlike many other Amendments, understanding they were written in

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The constitution is clearly saying all citizens have the right to be able to own and carry a weapon or firearm. On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves (Cornell 1). This is showing how our founding fathers supported the right to bear arms.

In McDonald v. the City of Chicago, the Court found that an individual’s right to lawfully possess a firearm for the purposes of self defense under the Second Amendment applied to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment(Krouse). The Fourteenth Amendment states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws(Fourteenth Amendment).”