Mcdonald Vs Chicago Case Study
Dylan sanders
JS 143
Professor Peterson
August 26th, 2013
Brief #1 McDonald vs. City of Chicago
1) CITATION: McDonald V. City of Chicago, III., 130 S. Ct. 3020- Supreme Court 2010
2) Facts: Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident, tried to purchase a handgun for the purpose of protecting his home and body but was denied due to a Chicago city ordinance that banned the possession of personal handguns. McDonald filed suit against the city of Chicago under the claim that the 2nd amendment of the U.S Constitution gave individuals the right to own a handgun, and that the 14th amendment for due process made the 2nd binding to the states. The case of District of Columbia v. Heller was used for precedent in this case. The latter case found the banning of personal handguns for the use of protecting the home unconstitutional, however only in D.C. The case did not apply to every state. …show more content…
However since it was concerning federal matters and the U.S Constitution, the first court to hear the case was a federal district court. After being rejected by the first court, an appellate court affirmed the matter. The case was then asked to be heard by the supreme court, which it was.
4) Issue: The supreme court was trying to decide whether the 2nd amendment right to bear arms was applicable to states and not only the federal government and its agencies. Also concerning the 14th amendment and if its due process clause made the 2nd amendment apply to all of the states. The Supreme Court decided to reverse and remand the case.
5) Reasoning/Analysis: This case mentioned “D.C v. Heller” many times and used this case as precedent. If it was decided that the 2nd amendment protected handguns in the home on federal jurisdiction, then states must apply as well. Also it was believed that bearing arms, although not used in the same sense as it was when first written, was still deeply rooted in American
JS 143
Professor Peterson
August 26th, 2013
Brief #1 McDonald vs. City of Chicago
1) CITATION: McDonald V. City of Chicago, III., 130 S. Ct. 3020- Supreme Court 2010
2) Facts: Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident, tried to purchase a handgun for the purpose of protecting his home and body but was denied due to a Chicago city ordinance that banned the possession of personal handguns. McDonald filed suit against the city of Chicago under the claim that the 2nd amendment of the U.S Constitution gave individuals the right to own a handgun, and that the 14th amendment for due process made the 2nd binding to the states. The case of District of Columbia v. Heller was used for precedent in this case. The latter case found the banning of personal handguns for the use of protecting the home unconstitutional, however only in D.C. The case did not apply to every state. …show more content…
However since it was concerning federal matters and the U.S Constitution, the first court to hear the case was a federal district court. After being rejected by the first court, an appellate court affirmed the matter. The case was then asked to be heard by the supreme court, which it was.
4) Issue: The supreme court was trying to decide whether the 2nd amendment right to bear arms was applicable to states and not only the federal government and its agencies. Also concerning the 14th amendment and if its due process clause made the 2nd amendment apply to all of the states. The Supreme Court decided to reverse and remand the case.
5) Reasoning/Analysis: This case mentioned “D.C v. Heller” many times and used this case as precedent. If it was decided that the 2nd amendment protected handguns in the home on federal jurisdiction, then states must apply as well. Also it was believed that bearing arms, although not used in the same sense as it was when first written, was still deeply rooted in American