McDonald v. Chicago By: Allie Pagel

Otis McDonald= An honest 76 year old man who wanted to defend peace and security in his corrupt neighborhood House was broken into 3 times—his garage twice “They [gangbangers and drug dealers] are out there at three in the morning, in the middle of the street, drinking and smoking their stuff. They throw stuff all over your lawn, and you can’t say anything, because they might up and shoot you” (Otis McDonald). Felt his constitutional rights (security and protection) were being violated—did not feel safe in his own home Background

The Issue Controversy over gun rights Second Amendment protects the right to “keep and bear arms”: Should it be applied to the states? Should it be incorporated into the Due Process Clause? (Is an individual’s right to carry a gun protected by his basic liberties?) McDonald testified that he owned 2 shotguns, but claimed they were too bulky to quickly defend himself against a midnight intruder The intentions of The Founding Fathers: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms…" Thomas Jefferson

The Outcome Supreme Court ruled that Chicago residents are now permitted to keep handguns in their homes Reasons for Supreme Court’s decision: -In Chicago’s crime-ridden neighborhoods, residents feel as if they need some way to defend themselves—it is unconstitutional to limit their rights to protection and self-defense -Criminals will re-think their decision to rob a house knowing that owners have guns -Criminals will find a way past the law to obtain a gun, whereas good citizens will find themselves defenseless

How the Case Affected Us Before the case, it wasn’t generally known whether or not the 2nd amendment applied to the states Key step toward re-establishing the initial interpretation of the 14th Amendment - Intended to protect the right of armed self-defense against abusive state and local governments Still controversy regarding when the 14th amendment should be applied to other amendments, but the 2nd amendment is now clearer