Mcdonald V. City Of Chicago Case Study

1249 Words5 Pages
McDonald v. City of Chicago In the case Columbia v. Heller, the court struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia and a similar case is now being presented to the Supreme Court, McDonald v. Chicago. Both Justices Scalia and Breyer have been asked to make a decision on how this case should rule (Oliver, PS12 Section, October 22, 2009). In this discussion I will support Justice Scalia on the terms of strict constructionalism/originalism to keep the Constitution the way it is. Scalia’s opponent, Justice Breyer is referred to as a contextualist who is in favor of modifying the Constitution as times change (Scalia, 2006, 270). Although Breyer could possibly present a convincing argument, he lacks substantial evidence. McDonald challenges the City of Chicago regarding the Second Amendment and the fact that handguns should not be banned. He finds it an absolute necessity for him as he lives in a lower class neighborhood where gangs are present (Sigale, p3). A somewhat similar case 15 months prior, Heller v. District of Columbia established that the constitutional protection applies in…show more content…
DC case with a 5-4 decision declaring that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and thus protecting ones fundamental right. “There are two ways protection might be applied to the states through the 14th Amendment…one way [being] the due process clause and the other is through the privileges and immunities clause (Wikipedia, p4).” The due process clause is the principle that government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law and therefore concluding that the right to bear arms is being threatened (Wikipedia, p3-4). Much in the same way, the Privileges and Immunities Clause prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory

More about Mcdonald V. City Of Chicago Case Study

Open Document