Supreme Court Case
McDonald versus Chicago
Granted on September 30, 2009, argued on March 2, 2010 and decided on June 28, 2010.Parties involvedOrtis McDonald as the plaintiff of the McDonald v. Chicago gun case is a resident of Chicago ever since 1952. He was a maintenance engineer based at the University of Chicago until his retirement. Before his most recent posting Mr. McDonald was an army veteran and served in Germany in the 1960s before moving into Chicago to raise his family. As a senior resident of Chicago, Mr. McDonald was a co-founder of the local union and at the present he is the leader of the local union. As a civil rights union leader in his home area of Chicago, Mr. McDonald has been trying exceptionally hard to keep off drug dealers and criminals from his neighborhood. He has been doing this as a community activist and due to increased crimes in the area he bought a gun which he keeps outside the city as the law bans handguns from the area (The Oyez Project, 2010).Chicago is the largest city in Illinois where over 2.8 million people reside. As the third most populated city in the United States, the city of Chicago is a metropolitan area with extremely high crime rates. There are series of violent crimes and homicides which take place in the city every year with the murders being ranked 2nd highest in the country. Hence Chicago is not a very safe place as everyone is at risk of being murdered. The city of Chicago has a ban on firearms especially handguns where none is expected to have in their possession a handgun but as at June 2010, the laws were modified for locals to register their firearms with the police (The Oyez Project, 2010).
Facts about the case
The Chicago v. McDonald case was based on the 2nd amendment on the constitution laws. The plaintiff had violated the amendment at federal level while at state level there was no violation of the law. Possession of handgun was not illegal under the federal law hence the argument was that the same scenario should be repeated on the state laws too (The Oyez Project, 2010).
Legal issues on the case
The most eminent legal issue was banning of the Chicago residents from registering their handguns. This also incorporates lack of registration facilities for equally dangerous or unusual weapons which may harm citizens. The other legal issue was on registration of guns prior to acquisition by locals, a procedure which has not been feasible up to date. The law then seeks the re-registration of guns on an annual basis which is subject to more fees being paid as a way of discouraging locals from owning guns. Owners who fail to re-register their guns each year are subjected to a law which depicts the gun as never registered. However, American residents are protected by the 14th amendment of the Privileges and Immunity clause to possess guns for self-protection in all states (The Oyez Project, 2010).
What the court decided
A combination of the 2nd and 14 amendments provides for all Americans to possess guns for self-defence. According to these sections, the possession of arms is a deep rooted tradition for the common good hence it should apply to all states. The court ruling incorporated the Due Process Clause of the 2nd amendment and the Privileges and Immunities section of the 14th Amendment to reach a conclusion that Mr. McDonald had not acted against the law. Though different pathways were used to get at the final decision, the court was able to draw similarities between the 2nd and 14th amendments at the state, as well as, federal level to prove that Mr. McDonald was not in the category which was barred from owning handguns (The Oyez Project, 2010).
Summary of the majority opinion(s)
The majority of the judges altered the seventh circuit thus used the 14thamendment to shed more light into the 2nd amendment that provided for the plaintiff to keep a handgun for self-defense. Justice Samuel Alito based the argument on the fundamental rights of the constitution where priority is given on deeply rooted traditions such as possessing a gun for the sole purpose of protecting an individual. Consequently, the Due Process Clause in the 14th amendment was appropriate in incorporation of the 2nd amendment in claiming that the Privileges and Immunities Clause was essential as a state and federal law (The Oyez Project, 2010).The issue of incorporating the individual rights in the court case was quite complex as the majority had varying opinions on the most appropriate pathway into identifying the protection offered by the law. However, despite the differences in the correct mechanism of incorporation, the majority were able to attain a consensus that the 14th amendment was part of the 2nd in challenging the states against the handgun or firearms ban (The Oyez Project, 2010).
Significance of the case
The McDonald v. Chicago court case is essential in enabling the public to understand the constitution in a more practical manner. However, the case has provisions that some unconstitutional cases can be solved by applying the constitution. This is exhibited by the fact that some elements of the case such as the “rooted traditions” are not part of the constitution but are a collection of values that are part of the norm in any given society. The other significance of the court case is that there are various interpretations of the constitution depending on the nature of scenario that is presented to the Supreme Court (The Oyez Project, 2010).
Opinion on the court’s ruling
I agree with the court’s ruling on the McDonald v. Chicago case. The courts ruling was carried out justly as the plaintiff had no past records in felony or domestic violence hence he was justified to have a gun for self-defence. Secondly in line with the deep rooted traditions, the city of Chicago is a rather dangerous place and as Mr. McDonald was involved in community policing he was bound to possess a gun to make his work more effective keeping in mind he had received a series of threats for his work.
Reference
The Oyez Project (2010), McDonald v. Chicago. Retrieved on November 17, 2010 from: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_1521
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
