Mcdonald Vs Chicago Case Study

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010)
Facts:
Mr. Otis McDonald, a denizen of Chicago, wanted to get a handgun for the purpose of self-defense. McDonald had lived in that particular Chicago neighborhood for several decades, and his decision to purchase a firearm was predicated upon his increasing frustration with the rising crimes rates of that neighborhood. He had even in fact been the victim of thefts and break-ins on numerous occasions. Legally, he already owned rifles and shotguns. However, he was hoping a handgun would serve as a more proper defense in close-quarters situations. To his dismay, the city of Chicago refused to issue any new handgun permits for the next thirty or so years. Naturally, McDonald brought suit, asserting that his second amendment rights had been offended. In concert with other second amendment cases, McDonald’s attempt to overturn the ban was denied at both District and Appeals Court levels. Luckily

Alito began by explaining the historical context of the Bill of Rights and the concept of Selective Incorporation through Due Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment. Though, historically, the second amendment had yet to be incorporated, Alito clarified the importance of doing so now by mentioning the fundamental nature of self-defense and how the right to bear arms is necessarily one means of guaranteeing self-defense. Alito justified the need to incorporate the second amendment by citing the historical use of the fourteenth amendment to do so with other Bill Rights amendments, and by pointing out the importance of holding the right to bear arms to similar standards vis-à-vis the other rights within the Bill of Rights. Lastly, Alito deemed the privileges and immunities question to be superfluous since the Court had already determined the right to bears arms to be substantive guarantee under the fourteenth