U5 McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

Question 1

What are the facts of the case?

Answer 1

In 1982, the city of Chicago adopted a handgun ban law that required anyone who wanted to own a handgun to register it, but the registration process was complex and possession of an unregistered firearm was a crime.
The Supreme Court said in 2008 that the Second Amendment includes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Otis McDonald and other Chicago residents sued the city for violating the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. They claimed that Chicago’s handgun regulations violate the Due Process Clause in the 14th amendment. Specifically the 14th Amendment makes the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms applicable to state and local governments.

Question 2

What is the Question/Issue?

Answer 2

Does the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms apply to State and Local governments through 14th Amendment Due Process Clause and thus limit Chicago’s ability to regulate guns?

Question 3

What was the Decision?

Answer 3

5-4 McDonald
The 2nd Amendment right to bear arms for self defense is applicable to the states under the 14th Amendment. The Framers of the 14th Amendment considered the right to keep and bear arms among the fundamental rights “necessary to our system of ordered liberty.”

Question 4

What was the Constitutional Clause?

Answer 4

Due Process Clause

Question 5

Was this an example of Judicial Restraint or Activism?

Answer 5

Judicial Activism