McDonald vs chicago


Published on

Marie McCammon & Holly Ochoa

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

McDonald vs chicago

  1. 1. McDonald Vs Chicago<br />By Marie McCammon and Holly Ochoa<br />
  2. 2. Description of original case<br />Otis McDonald, 76, an Army vet who lives in a high crime area of Chicago, thinks the Constitution gives him the right to bear arms to protect himself and his wife as he protected his country.<br />Many other citizens in Chicago agreed with him.<br />Chicago’s law made it difficult:<br />“Chicago’s law does not expressly prohibit handgun ownership, but Justice Alito argued that it effectively does so.  The law requires all owners of firearms to apply for a permit. Most handguns are excluded from the list of approvable firearms, therefore making it nearly impossible for any resident to own a handgun” (Pg. 8)<br />When Chicago refused to allow handguns, the residents decided to move the case to the Supreme Court because they declared this unconstitutional.<br />
  3. 3. Years<br />Of original case<br />December 18, 2008<br />Of Supreme Court case<br />Argued March 2, 2010<br />Decided June 28, 2010<br />Otis McDonald<br />
  4. 4. Final Vote Count<br />5:4 vote count for the plaintiffs<br />Majority opinion<br />Justice Alito, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kennedy, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas<br />Dissenting opinion<br />Justices Stevens and Breyer<br />Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor disagreed with the majority but not did write dissents<br />
  5. 5. Reasons for majority & dissents<br />Majority<br />Justice Alito said that self defense is a natural right and guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment.<br />They believed owning guns was a form of self-defense that should be protected, but there should also be regulations.<br />Dissenting<br />Justices Stevens and Breyer argued that the right to own a gun is not protected in the 14thAmendment.<br />They mention that the right to self-defense does not necessarily guarantee the right for a firearm. They don’t think people should be able to freely chose any means they want for self-defense.<br />
  6. 6. Constitutional Challenge<br />2nd Amendment<br />The majority opinion agreed that this amendment guaranteed the right to bear arms.<br />Therefore, a complete ban on handguns would be unconstitutional.<br />
  7. 7. Significance<br />The preceding case was District of Columbia Vs Heller<br />Overturned a handgun ban in D.C.<br />Decided that citizens did not have a substantive right to bear arms<br />This led to McDonald Vs Chicago<br />This case argued for America’s citizens natural rights as well as constitutional rights.<br />It also made the government think about regulations and restrictions for the right to bear arms.<br />
  8. 8. Time Period<br />This case happened recently, in the last few years (2008-2010).<br />Crime is rampant in America, more powerful and dangerous weapons are being built, and many are afraid of violence.<br />America is trying to improve the safety of it’s citizens, especially after 9/11 and the rise in murder while also staying true to the Constitution.<br />
  9. 9. This case and our lives<br />This case helps us feel like our constitutional rights are secure.<br />The ruling could have an affect on our lives because:<br />Us or someone we know may want to get a gun license<br />If there is a gun-related accident, we have the right to argue against the current gun-control regulations.<br />This case matters to me personally because:<br />I believe we have certain rights as Americans, but agree that limits must be set.<br />
  10. 10. Sources<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br />