McDonald v. City of Chicago

2010-06-28

Headline: Extends Second Amendment protections to the states, reversing lower courts and limiting cities’ ability to ban handguns, affecting state and local gun rules nationwide.

Holding: The Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applicable to the States, so the handgun ban challenged by Chicago and Oak Park cannot stand under that incorporated right.

Real World Impact:

Applies Second Amendment protections against states and local governments nationwide.
Blocks citywide handgun bans like Chicago’s while allowing some gun regulations.
Returns many gun‑policy disputes to federal courts reviewing state and local laws.

Topics: gun rights, state gun bans, self-defense, Fourteenth Amendment

Summary

Background

A group of Chicago residents who wanted to keep handguns in their homes sued after this Court’s earlier Heller decision, arguing Chicago and nearby Oak Park ordinances that effectively ban handguns violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Lower courts, including the Seventh Circuit, relied on 19th‑century precedents to uphold local bans and to say Heller did not bind the States, so the petitioners asked this Court to decide whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller is enforceable against the States. The Court’s majority (opinion announced by Justice Alito) held that the right is incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment because it is a fundamental right deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition, with self‑defense in the home at its core. The Court therefore reversed the Seventh Circuit and held that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right applicable to the States. Justice Thomas concurred, saying the Privileges or Immunities Clause provides a clearer basis.

Real world impact

The decision makes the core Heller protection — keeping a handgun in the home for self‑defense — enforceable against state and local governments, so blanket city handgun bans are vulnerable to constitutional challenge. The Court reiterated that longstanding restrictions (for example on felons, the mentally ill, sensitive places, and commercial regulations) are not necessarily overturned. The case was sent back to the lower courts for further proceedings consistent with the ruling.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices wrote separately. Justice Thomas concurred on the Privileges or Immunities basis. Justices Stevens and Breyer wrote dissents raising concerns about federalism, public safety, and judicial decisionmaking; the Court addressed and rejected those objections.