Brief Summary of the Case In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States reached a verdict in Washington, DC concerning the Second Amendment and an individual’s right for self-defense (Hess, 2011). Similarly, Otis McDonald confronted the laws of the City of Chicago in 2010, stating that the situation is rather similar to the one that happened in 2008. This happened for the reason that after the decision of the Supreme Court made back in 2008, the government cannot proscribe the home-based possession of firearms. This case is controversial because it raises the question of whether the same restrictions should be applied at a state level (O’Brien, 2013). McDonald stated that the right to bear arms is a fundamental part of the Constitution and should not be disregarded (Kevin, 2012). The State of Chicago claimed that this particular law should be regulated by the state and not on a federal level. The outcome of this case had a great impact on the way the right to bear arms has been perceived in different states (O’Brien, 2013). This decision also defied the previous outset of federalism and started a new chapter in the history of the right to bear arms. Decision of the Court The decision of the Supreme Court stated that the issue of self-defense and the right to possess and bear firearms might be reviewed at a state level (five conservative justices and four liberal justices). Samuel A. Alito authored the opinion (Kevin, 2012). His ideology comprised the understanding of the essential importance of the system of methodical liberty of the United States (Waldman, 2014). Moreover, Alito’s ideology was based on the fundamentals of the Fourteenth Amendment and its roots in the history and traditions of the United States. At this point, the Justices were determined to identify whether the State of Chicago had violated the right of an individual to self-defense (Hess, 2011). This decision declined the Privileges or Immunities Clause but was incorporated through the Due Process Clause. Evidence of the Court’s Political Leanings The decision of the Court leaned towards the conservative side. The liberal side of the Court opposed the unexpected decision to give the state the right to regulate the rules of keeping and bearing firearms (Waldman, 2014). The Court’s reference to the First, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments should have left the Second Amendment as the only option for an inevitable deduction (O’Brien, 2013). Surprisingly, even the liberal justices supported the supposition that the right to bear arms is not fundamental. This decision left cities and states in charge of the verdicts concerning the prohibition or permission to bear arms (Waldman, 2014). Correctness of the Decision and Personal Opinion I personally believe that the decision made by the Supreme Court of the United States was incorrect. Numerous factors identified that the Second Amendment should be applied. Nonetheless, both conservative and liberal justices merged their views in this trial for an unknown reason. This case can be characterized as a rather confusing situation. The Court disregarded one of the key clauses of the Second Amendment with the intention of determining the private rights to keep and bear arms without specifying the types and variations of those arms. This case had a great infl