What was the McDonald v. City of Chicago case?

 McDonald v. City of Chicago

What was the McDonald v. City of Chicago case?

How did it begin?

    In 1982, Chicago passed a ban on all handguns in an attempt to reduce gun violence. However, this ended in complete failure. The ban prohibited all city residents from owning a handgun, even inside their home, and required all existing handgun owners to re-register it every year. Being the first to enact a full ban on handguns, more bans were passed in other suburban cities including Evanston, Illinois and Oak Park, Illinois. These bans outraged many citizens and resulted in an increase of gun violence. This led to the question of whether or not the bans were constitutional.

    

    

The case itself arose in 2008, when Otis McDonald, who will be looked into further in future posts, challenged the ban. McDonald believed that the right to own firearms is protected within the Second Amendment, therefore declaring Chicago’s ban unconstitutional. However, Chicago argued that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states. Following McDonald’s original movement, many more suits were filed against firearm bans, specifically Chicago and Oak, including one by the National Rifle Association. McDonald and other plaintiffs of this case argued that the Due Process Clause and the “privileges and immunities” clause protected citizen’s right to bear arms from the states.

What Happened from there?

As time passed and suits were beginning to rise against the firearm bans, the district court decided to dismiss all suits against the states and cities. Instead, it was decided that Otis McDonald was granted certiorari and oral arguments were heard March 2, 2010. On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment (which states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States citizens of the country, and all “fundamental” rights be protected for the citizens) makes the Second Amendment (which granted citizens the right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defends) not only applicable to the federal government, but also to the states. While the McDonald won the case, with a 5-4 decision, not all justices agreed with the results. Majority agreed with McDonald and that the right to bear-arms for protection was “fundamental,” whereas other justices, such as Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who argued that nothing in the Second Amendment could be characterized as a “fundamental right.”

While this case has been decided, laws on gun control remain a frequently mentioned topic that often strikes controversy. Many argue that owning a firearm is a right to all citizens that can be taken away, whereas many others argue that if actions are not taken, gun violence will continue to rise and crime rates will increase. The “best” solution remains unknown and may never be known, but it is important to understand the facts of the situation before arguing for your point. While this question is highly opinionated and varies person to person, knowing the facts may allow to properly defend your stance, but could possibly change you’re thoughts on what would be “best.”