McDonald v. City of Chicago
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms", as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of "District of Columbia v. Heller" (2008) as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states. Initially, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh  Circuit had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing "United States v. Cruikshank" (1876), "Presser v. Illinois" (1886), and "Miller v. Texas" (1894). The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued "Heller", and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale. The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald. The oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010. On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a  5–4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by state and local governments. It then remanded the case back to the Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendment. Background. In "McDonald v. City of Chicago", Chicago resident Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old retired maintenance engineer, had lived in the Morgan Park neighborhood since buying a house there in 1971. McDonald described the decline of his neighborhood and claimed it was being taken over by gangs  and drug dealers. His lawn was regularly littered with refuse, and his home and garage had been broken into a combined five times, the most recent robbery being committed by a man whom McDonald recognized from his own neighborhood. As an experienced hunter, McDonald legally owned shotguns but believed them to be too unwieldy in the event of a robbery and so he wanted to purchase a handgun for personal home defense. Chicago's requirement that all firearms in the city be registered but its refusal of all handgun registrations since 1982, when a citywide handgun ban was passed, made  him unable to own a handgun legally. As a result, he joined in 2008 three other Chicago residents in filing a lawsuit that became "McDonald v. City of Chicago". Section::::"McDonald v. Chicago" as compared to "NRA v. Chicago". Despite being consolidated at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the cases are different in scope in terms of the specific regulations challenged and the legal argument for applying the Second Amendment against state and local governments. The Second Amendment Foundation brought the McDonald case to the Supreme Court with its lead attorney Alan Gura. The cases were appealed  separately to the U.S. Supreme Court. Regulations challenged. McDonald challenged four broad aspects of Chicago's gun registration law, which, according to the plaintiffs: Legal basis for incorporation. All of the post-"Heller" cases, including "McDonald", "NRA v. Chicago", "Nordyke" and "Maloney", argued that the Second Amendment, in addition to applying to federal jurisdictions, should also be applied against state and local governments, using a judicial process called selective incorporation. Selective incorporation involves convincing the court that a right is "fundamental" by being "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" or "deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions" as  defined most recently in the Supreme Court case "Duncan v. Louisiana", . In addition to claiming the Second Amendment should be incorporated through the selective incorporation process, "McDonald" is unique among post-Heller gun cases in that it asked the court to overturn the "Slaughter-House Cases", . "Slaughter-House" determined that the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause did not apply the Bill of Rights to the actions of states (and by extension, local governments). If it had been overturned, the Selective Incorporation process may have become unnecessary, since the entire Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, would arguably  be applied to the states. In attempting to overturn "Slaughter-House", this case garnered the attention and support of both conservative and liberal legal scholars interested in its potential application in areas outside of firearms law. Their interest was that if "Slaughter-House" had been overturned, it would have been possible that constitutional guarantees such as the right to a jury in civil cases, right to a grand jury in felony cases, and other parts of the Bill of Rights, as well as future court rulings and existing federal precedent, not universally guaranteed in actions by the states, would have  been applied against the states automatically. In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas criticized the "Slaughter-House" and "Cruikshank" decisions, proposing that "the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause." Section::::"Amici curiae". Thirty-three "amici curiae" ("friends of the court") briefs for this case were filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court. One of these briefs was filed by U.S. senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R, TX) and Jon Tester (D, MT) and U.S. representatives Mark Souder (R, IN) and Mike Ross  (D, AR) asking the Supreme Court to find in favor of the petitioners and rule that the Second Amendment does apply to the states. The brief was signed by 58 senators and 251 representatives, more members of Congress than any "amicus curiae" brief in history. Moreover, thirty-two states under the aegis of Texas (and California independently) also filed "amici curiae". Decision. Central Second Amendment findings. In "People v. Aguilar" (2013), the Illinois Supreme Court summed up the central Second Amendment findings in "McDonald": Opinion. The majority agreed that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in "Heller , but was split on the rationale. Writing for four members of the court, Justice Alito found that the Due Process Clause incorporates that right against the States. While joining most of the rest of Alito’s opinion, Justice Thomas, in his concurrence, concluded that the right to bear arms is incorporated only on alternative grounds, namely through the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Alito also reaffirmed, in part of the opinion for four justices, that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller" are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case. Such  restrictions include those to "prohibit ... the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill" and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Dissents. Justice Stevens wrote a lengthy dissenting opinion. Among his disagreements with the majority was the statement that incorporation was not at issue in this case. Citing "Cruikshank", Stevens wrote, "The so-called incorporation question was squarely and, in my view, correctly resolved in the late 19th century." In addition, he argued against incorporation, taking issue with the  methodology of the majority opinions. Justice Breyer wrote, "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, 'fundamental. Reception. The initial reactions to the Court's ruling were favorable from both the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Both issued statements to the public that they feel they were vindicated by the Court's holding. However, the court did not include a "clarification of the standard for review" as requested  by the Brady group in their amicus brief. In a discussion on the day of the ruling Wayne LaPierre of the NRA and Paul Helmke of the Brady Center both agreed that the Court's ruling ruled out bans on handguns which are to be used for "lawful purposes" such as self-protection in the home. But as to the general question of gun laws not covered in "McDonald", a large number of lawsuits are needed in order to determine whether any other existing State gun regulations might also be unconstitutional. McDonald, supra., stated that the "2nd Amendment is 'fully  applicable' to all of the States", but Wayne LaPierre expressed caution that the NRA has "a lot of work ahead" attempting to overturn other gun control regulations not covered by "McDonald". Helmke predicted that in that regard the NRA was "going to lose most of those lawsuits". Related cases. The day after "Heller" was filed, the National Rifle Association filed five similar lawsuits challenging local gun bans: Other notable post-"Heller" Second Amendment court cases: