Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN Second Amendment

<I>McDonald v. Chicago:</I> NRA's Argument Prevails as Supreme Court Applies Second Amendment Nationwide

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.—a case challenging handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois—ruled that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense nationwide. The Court said, “We have previously held that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.” The ruling reversed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which upheld the bans, and requires that court to reconsider McDonald in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Chicago thereafter passed an ordinance permitting handgun ownership with unreasonable restrictions. NRA is supporting Benson v. Chicago, challenging the ordinance.

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas concurring in whole or in part. These five Justices also constituted the 5-4 majority in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing, private, individually-held right to keep and bear arms, without regard to a person’s relationship to a militia, and that the District of Columbia’s bans on handguns and on keeping firearms assembled within the home were unconstitutional. Dissenting in McDonald were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens, all of whom dissented in Heller, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, recently appointed to the Court by President Barack Obama, after stating during her Senate confirmation hearings that she considers Heller to be a matter of settled law.

In McDonald, the Court applied the Second Amendment nationwide through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, as argued for the NRA by former Solicitor General Paul Clement, rather than through the amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause. (Because McDonald was consolidated with the separate case of NRA v. Chicago in the Court of Appeals, NRA was a party to McDonald and presented its argument before the Supreme Court.)

The Court stated, “A provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.” The Court added:

Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right. Explaining that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, we found that this right applies to handguns because they are “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family.” Thus, we concluded, citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” Heller makes it clear that this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition”. . . . The right to keep and bear arms was considered no less fundamental by those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights.


Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, filed a dissenting opinion that claimed that the right to arms shouldn’t be incorporated because (1) it isn’t recognized to be fundamental by “popular consensus,” (2) it doesn’t protect minorities or persons neglected by those holding political power, (3) its incorporation would alter the relationship between the federal and state governments, by prohibiting states from restricting the right to arms, and (4) its incorporation would force state and local judges to answer questions outside their area of expertise. Taking these arguments as numbered above, the Court said:

(1) “[W]e have never held that a provision of the Bill of Rights applies to the States only if there is a ‘popular consensus’ that the right is fundamental, and we see no basis for such a rule. But in this case, as it turns out, there is evidence of such a consensus. An amicus brief submitted by 58 Members of the Senate and 251 Members of the House of Representatives urges us to hold that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental.”

(2) “[P]etitioners and many others who live in high crime areas dispute the proposition that the Second Amendment right does not protect minorities and those lacking political clout. . . . If, as petitioners believe, their safety and the safety of other law-abiding members of the community would be enhanced by the possession of handguns in the home for self-defense, then the Second Amendment right protects the rights of minorities and other residents of high-crime areas whose needs are not being met by elected public officials.”

(3) “Incorporation always restricts experimentation and local variations, but that has not stopped the Court from incorporating virtually every other provision of the Bill of Rights. . . . This conclusion is no more remarkable with respect to the Second Amendment than it is with respect to all the other limitations on state power found in the Constitution.”

(4) “Justice Breyer is incorrect that incorporation will require judges to assess the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions and thus to make difficult empirical judgments in an area in which they lack expertise. As we have noted, while his opinion in Heller recommended an interest-balancing test, the Court specifically rejected that suggestion.”

Justice Stevens dissented separately, claiming that “rights protected against state infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause need not be identical in shape or scope to the rights protected against Federal Government infringement by the various provisions of the Bill of Rights.” The Court disagreed, noting that it had previously “decisively held that incorporated Bill of Rights protections ‘are all to be enforced against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment according to the same standards that protect those personal rights against federal encroachment.’” And, it concluded, “The relationship between the Bill of Rights’ guarantees and the States must be governed by a single, neutral principle.”

Justice Scalia, in an opinion concurring with the majority, said that Justice Stevens used a “subjective” and “topsy turvy” standard for determining what rights should be protected through the Fourteenth Amendment. He said that under that standard, “a right, such as the right to keep and bear arms, that has long been recognized but on which the States are considering restrictions, apparently deserves less protection, while a privilege the political branches (instruments of the democratic process) have withheld entirely and continue to withhold, deserves more.” He also noted that, under that standard, many rights protected by the Due Process Clause would lose their protection. To Justice Stevens’ claim that owning a handgun isn’t “critical to leading a life of autonomy, dignity, or political equality,” Justice Scalia responded, “Who says? Deciding what is essential to an enlightened, liberty-filled life is an inherently political, moral judgment.”

Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring with the majority on many points, but arguing that “the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause.”

TRENDING NOW
New “Watchlist” Sends Outspoken Academics into a Tailspin

News  

Friday, December 9, 2016

New “Watchlist” Sends Outspoken Academics into a Tailspin

A new “watchlist” is ruffling feathers in the academic community, with critics calling it “Orwellian,” “grotesque,” “an assault on academic freedom,” and even “the right’s new McCarythyism.”

Ohio: Important Self-Defense Bill Heads to Governor Kasich!

Friday, December 9, 2016

Ohio: Important Self-Defense Bill Heads to Governor Kasich!

Early this morning, Sub. Senate Bill 199, now including original language from Sub. House Bill 48, overwhelmingly passed the House and final concurrence in the Senate, despite the efforts of misguided anti-gun groups.  The bill will ...

Gun Control Group: Interest in Guns, Music Signals Intention to Murder

News  

Friday, December 9, 2016

Gun Control Group: Interest in Guns, Music Signals Intention to Murder

Sandy Hook Promise (SHP), an activist group out of Connecticut, has created a heart-tugging “public service announcement” that it hopes will capture the public’s imagination.  

Ohio Concealed Carry Bill Passes Assembly with Impressive Majority

News  

Friday, December 9, 2016

Ohio Concealed Carry Bill Passes Assembly with Impressive Majority

The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) applauds the Ohio General Assembly for its overwhelming support of legislation that expands the rights of concealed carry permit holders in the Buckeye state.

Corporate Lawyers Join Activists to Restrict Gun Rights

News  

Friday, December 9, 2016

Corporate Lawyers Join Activists to Restrict Gun Rights

This week, the New York Times announced that some of the nation’s largest law firms are forming a coalition with gun control advocates to provide tens of millions of dollars of free legal services to battle the ...

Ohio: Contact your State Legislators Today in Support of Important Self-Defense Bill!

Thursday, December 8, 2016

Ohio: Contact your State Legislators Today in Support of Important Self-Defense Bill!

Today, Sub. Senate Bill 199 is expected to receive its final votes; however, anti-gun groups are actively trying to defeat this bill! It is important that you contact your state legislators TODAY and tell them that an ...

California: Bullet Button Guns Must be Purchased and Received by Dec 31st

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

California: Bullet Button Guns Must be Purchased and Received by Dec 31st

Recently the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms sent out a notice to California firearms dealers with information regarding the recently passed “assault weapon” legislation, SB880 and AB 1135.

The Year of the Gun: Carry Permit, Sales Figures Explode in 2016

News  

Friday, December 9, 2016

The Year of the Gun: Carry Permit, Sales Figures Explode in 2016

The number of persons in the United States with concealed carry permits has reached an all-time high of close to 15 million. John R. Lott, Jr. of the Crime Prevention Research Center explains:

Gun Control Supporters Race to Embarrass Themselves Following OSU Stabbing Attack

News  

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Gun Control Supporters Race to Embarrass Themselves Following OSU Stabbing Attack

Guinness World Records may refuse to acknowledge feats pertaining to the lawful exercise of right to keep and bear arms, but how about a world record for most shameless attempt to politicize tragedy? The competition would ...

News  

Friday, July 1, 2016

California Governor Signs Draconian Gun Control Package into Law

Fairfax, Va.— California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law on Friday a package of gun bills that were rushed through the state legislature with no regard for proper process. The National Rifle Association Institute for ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -
NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.