Downloaded 43 times
McDonald vs chicago
- 1. McDonald Vs ChicagoByMarie McCammon and Holly Ochoa
- 2. Description of originalcaseOtis 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.Many other citizens in Chicago agreed with him.Chicago’s law made it difficult:“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)http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/a-full-summary-and-analysis-of-the-mcdonald-v-chicago-supreme-court-case#ixzz1EBT6jjavWhen Chicago refused to allow handguns, the residents decided to move the case to the Supreme Court because they declared this unconstitutional.
- 3. YearsOf original caseDecember18, 2008Of Supreme Court caseArgued March 2, 2010Decided June 28, 2010Otis McDonald
- 4. Final Vote Count5:4vote count for the plaintiffsMajority opinionJustice Alito, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kennedy, Justice Scalia, and Justice ThomasDissenting opinionJustices Stevens and BreyerJustices Ginsburg and Sotomayor disagreed with the majority but not did write dissents
- 5. Reasons for majority& dissentsMajorityJustice Alito said that self defense is a natural right and guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment.They believed owning guns was a form of self-defense that should be protected, but there should also be regulations.DissentingJustices Stevens and Breyer argued that the right to own a gun is not protected in the 14thAmendment.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.
- 6. Constitutional Challenge2nd AmendmentThemajority opinion agreed that this amendment guaranteed the right to bear arms.Therefore, a complete ban on handguns would be unconstitutional.
- 7. SignificanceThe preceding casewas District of Columbia Vs HellerOverturned a handgun ban in D.C.Decided that citizens did not have a substantive right to bear armsThis led to McDonald Vs ChicagoThis case argued for America’s citizens natural rights as well as constitutional rights.It also made the government think about regulations and restrictions for the right to bear arms.
- 8. Time PeriodThis casehappened recently, in the last few years (2008-2010).Crime is rampant in America, more powerful and dangerous weapons are being built, and many are afraid of violence.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.
- 9. This case andour livesThis case helps us feel like our constitutional rights are secure.The ruling could have an affect on our lives because:Us or someone we know may want to get a gun licenseIf there is a gun-related accident, we have the right to argue against the current gun-control regulations.This case matters to me personally because:I believe we have certain rights as Americans, but agree that limits must be set.
- 10.