Editing McDonald v. Chicago

{{youtube|0wwkSSPn_AQ}}[[File:Otis McConald.jpg|thumb|Chicago resident Otis McDonald]]'''''[[McDonald v. Chicago]]''''', 561 U.S. ___ (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the issue of gun rights. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the [[Second Amendment to the United States Constitution]] is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller]]'' as to the scope of gun rights ''vis-à-vis'' the states.

On [[June 28]], [[2010]], the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision in '''''[[NRA v. Chicago]]''''' and remanded it back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago [[Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Illinois|gun restrictions]] and the [[Second Amendment to the United States Constitution|Second Amendment]]. The Court of Appeals had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing ''[[United States v. Cruikshank]]'', ''[[Presser v. Illinois]]'', and ''[[Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Miller_v._Texas|Miller v. Texas]]''.<ref>''National Rifle Ass'n of Amer., Inc. v. City of Chicago'', National Rifle Ass'n of Amer., Inc. v. City of Chicago, 567 F.3d 856, 857 (7th Cir. 2009)</ref> The petition for certiorari was filed by [[Alan Gura]], the attorney who had successfully argued ''Heller'', and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.<ref>Taff, Mark. [http://www.chicagoguncase.com/2008/06/26/saf-files-lawsuit-challenging-chicagos-handgun-ban/ "SAF Files Lawsuit Challenging Chicago’s Handgun Ban"] www.chicagoguncase.com</ref> The [[Second Amendment Foundation]] and the [[Illinois State Rifle Association]] sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree [[Otis McDonald]].<ref>http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1400961.html</ref>

==Lower court background==

The trial court entered judgment in favor of the City of Chicago on [[December 18]], [[2008]].<ref name="urlChicago Handgun Ban Upheld">Gilmer, Marcus (December 18, 2008). [http://chicagoist.com/2008/12/18/chicago_handgun_ban_upheld.php "Chicago Handgun Ban Upheld"]. ''Chicagoist''. </ref> The decision was appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and combined with a similar case, ''NRA v. Chicago''. Oral argument was [[May 26]], [[2009]], and the court issued its opinion on [[June 28]], [[2009]], affirming the trial court's decision that the Chicago and Oak Park gun regulations pass constitutional muster.<ref>Robinson, Mike (June 2, 2009). [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-gunruling,0,1211853.story "Federal Appeals Court Upholds Ban on Handguns"]. ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref>

The Second Amendment Foundation appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari on behalf of their plaintiffs. Certiorari for ''McDonald'' was granted on [[September 30]], 2009.<ref name="cert">Schorsch, Kristen. [http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/09/supreme-court-may-decide-on-hearing-chicago-gun-cases.html "Supreme Court to hear Chicago gun case"] Chicago Breaking News</ref> The NRA separately filed on behalf of their plaintiffs, and on [[January 25]], [[2010]] the Supreme Court granted the NRA's motion for divided argument.<ref>[http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13337 U.S. Supreme Court Grants NRA Motion for Divided Argument in McDonald v. City of Chicago], www.nraila.org February 18, 2010</ref> Oral argument took place on [[March 2]], 2010.<ref>Miller, Erin (March 2, 2010). [http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/podcasts-mcdonald-v-city-of-chicago/ Podcasts: McDonald v. City of Chicago] SCOTUSblog</ref><ref>Liptak, Adam (March 2, 2010). [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/us/03scotus.html "Supreme Court Still Divided on Guns"]. ''The New York Times''. </ref>  On June 28, 2010, the High Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment, subjecting Chicago's gun ordinances to the requirements of the Federal Second Amendment.<ref>Mears, Bill (June 28, 2009). [http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/28/court-rules-for-gun-rights-strikes-down-chicago-handgun-ban/?iref=allsearch "Court rules for gun rights, strikes down Chicago handgun ban"]. ''CNN''. </ref>

==''McDonald v. Chicago'' as compared to ''NRA v. Chicago''==
Despite being consolidated at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, the cases are different in scope in terms of the specific regulations challenged and the legal argument for applying the Second Amendment against state and local governments. The cases were appealed separately to the U.S. Supreme Court.<ref>[http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/a-new-second-amendment-case/ A new Second Amendment case] SCOTUSblog July 4, 2009</ref>
* [http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/mcdonald_cert_petition1.pdf McDonald Petition for Certiorari]
* [http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/certpetitionchicago.pdf NRA Petition for Certiorari]
* [http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/chicago_bio.pdf Chicago Brief in Opposition to Cert Petition]

===Regulations challenged===
The NRA case is focused on the fact that Chicago's gun registration laws do not allow the registration of handguns. It should be noted that in the ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller]]'', "The Court also recognized a distinction between weapons "in common use at the time" and weapons that were considered dangerous and unusual..."<ref>http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&hid=112&sid=168737cb-33a1-47bd-9238-f0410fbb6b73%40sessionmgr112</ref> 

McDonald challenges four broad aspects of Chicago's gun registration law, which, according to the plaintiffs:<ref>[http://www.chicagoguncase.com/faqs/#laws-challenging ChicagoGunCase.com » FAQs] www.chicagoguncase.com</ref>

* Prohibit the registration of handguns, thus effecting a broad handgun ban
* Require that guns be registered prior to their acquisition by Chicago residents, which is not always feasible
* Mandate that guns be re-registered annually, with another payment of the fee
* Render any gun permanently non-registrable if its registration lapses

===Legal basis for incorporation===
All of the post-''Heller'' cases, including ''McDonald'', ''NRA v. Chicago'', ''Nordyke'' and ''Maloney'', argued that the Second Amendment, in addition applying to federal jurisdictions, should also be applied against state and local governments, using a judicial process called selective incorporation. Selective incorporation involves convincing the court that a right is "fundamental" by being “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” or “deeply rooted in our nation’s history and traditions” as defined most recently in the Supreme Court case ''Duncan v. Louisiana'', 391 U.S. 145 (1968), which incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and applied it to the states.

In addition to claiming the Second Amendment should be incorporated through the selective incorporation process, ''McDonald'' is unique among post-Heller gun cases in that it asked the court to overturn the ''Slaughter-House Cases'', 83 U.S. 36 (1873). ''Slaughter-House'' determined that the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause did not apply the Bill of Rights to the actions of states (and by extension, local governments). If it had been overturned, the Selective Incorporation process may have become unnecessary, since the entire Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, would arguably be applied against the states.<ref>"[T]he words 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States' seems to me an eminently reasonable way of expressing the idea that henceforth the Bill of Rights shall apply to the States." Erwin Chemerinsky et al., Constitutional Law § 6.3.2 (3d ed. 2006) (''quoting'' ''Duncan v. Louisiana'', 391 U.S. 145, 166 (1968) (Black, dissenting))</ref>

In attempting to overturn ''Slaughter-House'', this case garnered the attention and support of both conservative and liberal legal scholars interested in its potential application in areas outside of firearms law. Their interest was that if ''Slaughter-House'' had been overturned, it would have been possible that constitutional guarantees such as the right to a jury in civil cases, right to a grand jury in felony cases, and other parts of the Bill of Rights, as well as future court rulings and existing federal precedent, not universally guaranteed in actions by the states, would have been applied against the states automatically.<ref>[http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202428529045 Liberals Use Supreme Court Gun Case to Bolster Other Rights] www.law.com</ref><ref>[http://www.theusconstitution.org/page_module.php?id=12&mid=9 "Constitutional Accountability Center filed brief in NRA v. Chicago"] www.theusconstitution.org</ref><ref>[http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_PetitionerAmCuConLawProfs.pdf Brief for Constitutional Law Professors as Amici Curiae]</ref>

In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas alone supported overturning the ''Slaughter-House'' and ''Cruikshank'' decisions,<ref>slip op., at 52-54 (Thomas, J., concurring)</ref>  proposing that "the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause."<ref>slip op., at 1 (Thomas, J., concurring)</ref>

==''Amici curiae==
Thirty-three ''amicus curiae'' ("friends of the court") for this case have been filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court.<ref>[http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/feb2010.shtml#081521 Merit Briefs for February Supreme Court Cases, Term 2009-2010] American Bar Association</ref> 

One of these briefs was filed by U.S. senators Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R, TX) and John Tester (D, MT) and U.S. representatives Mark Souder (R, IN) and Mike Ross (D, AR) asking the Supreme Court to find in favor of the petitioners and rule that the Second Amendment does apply to the states.<ref>[http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_PetitionerAmCuSenatorKayBaileyHutchison.pdf Brief for Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson et al. as Amici Curiae]</ref>  The brief was signed by 58 senators and 251 representatives, more members of Congress than any ''amicus curiae'' brief in history.<ref>[http://hutchison.senate.gov/pr112309a.html Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson press release], November 23, 2009</ref>  Furthermore, thirty-two states under the aegis of Texas (and California independently) also filed ''amici curiae''.<ref>http://www.chicagoguncase.com/case-filings/#SupremeCourt</ref>

==Decision==
Justice Alito, in writing for the majority, concluded "that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the [[Second Amendment to the United States Constitution|Second Amendment]] right recognized in ''Heller''."<ref>''McDonald'', at ___-___ (slip op., at 44)</ref> Justice Thomas, writing a separate opinion, reached the incorporation issue on different grounds, using instead the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to reach the same result of incorporation.<ref>[http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/privileges-or-immunities-clause-alive-again/ SCOTUS blog]</ref> The opinion also re-affirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller]]'', such as those "prohibit[ing]...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill," as well as "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" are all permissible.<ref>''McDonald'', at ___-___ (slip op., at 39-40)</ref>

==Reception==

The initial reactions to the ruling have been favorable from both sides of the gun politics debate.  Both the National Rifle Association<ref name="urlwww.nraila.org">[http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13956 Statement by Wayne LaPierre Executive Vice President, NRA and Chris W. Cox Executive Director, NRA-ILA Regarding U.S. Supreme Court Decision ''McDonald v. City of Chicago'']</ref> and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence<ref name="urlBrady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence : Media">[http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1265/ Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: Media]</ref> have issued statements that they feel vindicated or pleased by the Supreme Court's holding.  However, the court did not include a "clarification of the standard for review" as requested by the Brady group in their amicus brief.<ref name="urlBrady AmicusBrief">[http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_NeutralAmCuBradyCtrand3PoliceAssns.pdf Brief for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence et al. as Amici Curiae]</ref>  In a discussion on the day of the ruling Wayne LaPierre of the NRA and Paul Helmke of the Brady Center both agreed that the ruling protected specifically against bans on handguns for self protection in the home.  But as to the general question of gun laws not covered in ''McDonald''; a large number of lawsuits will be needed in order to determine whether any other existing gun regulations might also be unconstitutional.   Wayne LaPierre expressed caution that the NRA has "a lot of work ahead" attempting to overturn other gun control regulations not covered by ''McDonald''.  And Paul Helmke explained that he expected that the NRA is "going to lose most of those lawsuits".<ref name="url6-28PBS">[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june10/guns2_06-28.html#transcript "After Supreme Court Ruling, Cities Face Restructuring of Gun Laws"]. Interviewer: Gwen Ifill. ''NewsHour''. PBS. June 28, 2010.</ref>

==Related cases==
The day after ''Heller'' was filed the [[National Rifle Association]] filed five similar lawsuits challenging local gun bans:
* ''[[Guy Montag Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority]]''
* Three unnamed suits against the Chicago suburbs of Evanston, Morton Grove and Oak Park<ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/text/s.php?sId=92008363&m=1 "NRA Eyes More Targets After D.C. Gun-Ban Win"] NPR</ref>
* ''[[NRA v. Chicago]]'' - eventually merged with this case

Other notable post-''Heller'' Second Amendment court cases:

* ''[[Nordyke v. King]]'', 563 F.3d 493 (9th. Cir. 2009) Held that the 2nd Amendment did apply to the states in the Ninth Circuit, though the ruling has since been vacated for ''en banc'' reconsideration, and the Alameda County, California prohibition of firearms on county property remains constitutional pending the outcome of ''McDonald v. Chicago''.
* ''[http://homepages.nyu.edu/~jmm257/mvc.html Maloney v. Rice (a.k.a. Maloney v. Cuomo and Maloney v. Spitzer)]'', 554 F.3d 56 (2d. Cir. 2009) Held that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states in the Second Circuit.  The case involved a state ban on Nunchaku sticks (a martial arts weapon).
* ''[http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/821542.opn.pdf  State of Washington v. Sieyes]''  The Washington Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated and applies to Washington State, via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
* ''[http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=dmdaterminal&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Court+Decisions&L2=Alphabetical+List+by+Case+Name&L3=M+-+S&sid=Dmdaa&b=terminalcontent&f=courts_runyan&csid=Dmdaa The Commonwealth V. Runyan]'', 456 Mass. 230 (2010)  The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that Heller did not apply to the Massachusetts state legislature and that the gun locks ordered under Massachusetts law are different than those regulated in Heller.

==See also==
* [[Firearm case law in the United States]]

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
* [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf Official slip opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court]
* [http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf SCOTUS Transcript of Oral Arguments in McDonald v. Chicago]
* [http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2010/In-Their-Sights-Lawsuit-challenging-Chicagos-1982-handgun-ban-to-be-heard-by-Supreme-Court/ Case history by ''Chicago'' magazine]
* [http://www.ArmsKeepers.org Arms Keepers], an organization that has filed a brief supporting McDonald's request that the Supreme Court hear the case
* [http://www.ChicagoGunCase.com/ ChicagoGunCase.com] case history by a group supporting gun rights
* [http://www.chicagoguncase.com/case-filings/ Case filings and court opinions for McDonald v. Chicago including the original complaint and subsequent filings]
* [http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/chicago.pdf NRA Complaint against Chicago]
* [http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/evanston.pdf NRA Complaint against Evanston]
* [http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/morton.pdf NRA Complaint against Morton Grove]
* [http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/oakpark.pdf NRA Complaint against Oak Park]

[[Category:American gun law]]
[[Category:American gun politics]]
{{featured article}}
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{youtube slideshow
+{{youtube|0wwkSSPn_AQ}}[[File:Otis McConald.jpg|thumb|Chicago resident Otis McDonald]]'''''[[McDonald v. Chicago]]''''', 561 U.S. ___ (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the issue of gun rights. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the [[Second Amendment to the United States Constitution]] is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller]]'' as to the scope of gun rights ''vis-à-vis'' the states.
-|UniqueID=
-|header= See more
-|float= right
-|video1= 0wwkSSPn_AQ
-|video2= oFTHlmEdmyw
-|video3=
-|video4=
-|video5=
-}}
-[[File:Otis McConald.jpg|thumb|Chicago resident Otis McDonald]]'''''[[McDonald v. Chicago]]''''', 561 U.S. ___ (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the issue of gun rights. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the [[Second Amendment to the United States Constitution]] is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller]]'' as to the scope of gun rights ''vis-à-vis'' the states.
 On [[June 28]], [[2010]], the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision in '''''[[NRA v. Chicago]]''''' and remanded it back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago [[Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Illinois|gun restrictions]] and the [[Second Amendment to the United States Constitution|Second Amendment]]. The Court of Appeals had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing ''[[United States v. Cruikshank]]'', ''[[Presser v. Illinois]]'', and ''[[Second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Miller_v._Texas|Miller v. Texas]]''.<ref>''National Rifle Ass'n of Amer., Inc. v. City of Chicago'', National Rifle Ass'n of Amer., Inc. v. City of Chicago, 567 F.3d 856, 857 (7th Cir. 2009)</ref> The petition for certiorari was filed by [[Alan Gura]], the attorney who had successfully argued ''Heller'', and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.<ref>Taff, Mark. [http://www.chicagoguncase.com/2008/06/26/saf-files-lawsuit-challenging-chicagos-handgun-ban/ "SAF Files Lawsuit Challenging Chicago’s Handgun Ban"] www.chicagoguncase.com</ref> The [[Second Amendment Foundation]] and the [[Illinois State Rifle Association]] sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree [[Otis McDonald]].<ref>http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1400961.html</ref>