McDonald v. City of Chicago in the context of "Second Amendment to the United States Constitution"

Play Trivia Questions online!

or

Skip to study material about McDonald v. City of Chicago in the context of "Second Amendment to the United States Constitution"

Ad spacer

>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<

👉 McDonald v. City of Chicago in the context of Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the United States Bill of Rights. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) the Supreme Court ruled that state and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing upon this right. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) assured the right to carry weapons in public spaces with reasonable exceptions.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by the militia, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] militia." He argued that State governments "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms", and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".

↓ Explore More Topics
In this Dossier

McDonald v. City of Chicago in the context of Gun law in the United States

In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is modulated by a variety of state and federal statutes. These laws generally regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by state, local and the federal agencies which include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

The private right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. This protection became legally explicit when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that the Amendment defined and protected an individual right, unconnected with militia service. A subsequent holding in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) ruled that the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thereby applies to state and local laws. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) the Court struck down New York's may-issue policy of being required to show "proper cause" to be granted a concealed carry license, but allowed states to enforce "shall-issue" permitting where applicants must satisfy certain objective criteria such as passing a background check. It also held that any regulation of firearms in the United States is presumed unconstitutional unless the state can prove it is rooted in the country's text, history, and tradition. In United States v. Rahimi (2024), this test was refined as the Court upheld federal laws restricting gun rights from those accused of domestic violence and said that lower courts should not seek exact comparisons when reviewing the historical tradition but rather look at similar analogues and general principles.

↑ Return to Menu