Critical Assessment and Impact - McDonald vs Chicago - Research Paper Example

McDonald vs. Chicago Background A 76 year old resident of Chicago Otis McDonald was a retired engineer and had lived in the Morgan Park neighborhood since 1971 when he first bought his house in that area. McDonald described that his neighborhood had been taken over by some of the gangs who dealt with drugs. He had been facing complains since the decline of his neighborhood and had talked about his lawn being littered regularly, his home and garage being broken down plenty of times and robberies being committed with the most recent one involving a man from his own neighborhood that he himself recognized1. McDonald had been an experienced hunter and he legally owned shotguns but he believed they were too unreasonable to be used in the events of robbery and thus he wished to keep a handgun for his own protection and personal home defense. But he was unable to legally purchase and keep the handgun because the city of Chicago didn’t allow any arm in the city without registration and all the registrations for handguns had been closed down since 1982 after the ban was made on handguns in Chicago. Eventually in 2008, after joining hands with three other Chicago residents, he filed a lawsuit which became known as the McDonald v. Chicago. The case of McDonald v. Chicago was decided in the Supreme Court but about two years before the decision was made, the high court has issued one of the most important rulings in 70 years which was related to the Second Amendment. In the case of D.C v. Heller, the Supreme Court had confirmed that the rights to keep arms is extended to individuals in the federal enclaves like Washington, D.C but it did not tend to restrict the right to states to the individual gun ownership. After this decision given in Heller, Otis McDonald along with three others; Adam Orloy and David and Colleen Lawson were brought to court to challenge the 1982 law ban of handgun possession. The case was organized by the Virginia attorney, the same who had argued for the Heller case, Alan Gura2. The action of the court and the appeal’s process According to the facts of the case the Second Amendment reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In Heller, the Supreme Court had held that the Second Amendment tends to secure the rights of the individual to bear arms, which includes handguns, to serve the purposes of self defense. The Heller case decision held that the rights granted to bear arms was limited and the Court did put down two Washington D.C. laws for gun control in the effect of that time. The laws of Washington D.C. did not directly ban the handguns, but they had reached that result by stating that the possession of an unregistered arm is a crime, and the registration of handguns is illegal. Furthermore, the Heller case also struck down the Washington D.C. law which said that all the unlawful arms that are kept at home should be either disassembled or trigger-locked. One day after Heller was decided, the petitioners McDonald brought lawsuits against the respondents the City of Chicago and the village of Oak Park in Chicago in the Northern District of Illinois. They challenged the municipal laws which were similar to those federal laws that were struck down in the Heller case. Just like the laws struck down in Heller, the Chicago and Oak Park’s laws prohibited the possession of handguns. As mentioned earlier, the McDonald’s case highlighted that the Chicago law accomplished a ban on the handguns by prohibiting the possession of arms that are unregistered. Chicago laws also prohibit the registration of handguns. In the same way, the Oak Park laws tend to prohibit the handgun possession. The main issue that was argued by McDonald was that the Second Amendment gives the right to bear arms and this should be applied to the states and municipalities too through Due Process Clause or the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court has dismissed the lawsuits of McDonald with a hasty opinion. McDonald then appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit3. The Seventh Circuit also strengthened the district court’s dismissal and explained that Heller had dealt with a law enacted under the authority of the national government, while the issue of the Illinois laws was enacted by Chicago and Oak Park which were the subordinate bodies of a state. It also noted that the Supreme Court has already refused to incorporate the Second Amendment in the states in the past. And finally it asserted that the question that whether the right to keep and bear arms should be incorporated against the stated through the Fourteenth Amendment was something that not the court of appeals but the Supreme Court should decide. Thus, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in 2009. Analysis and Arguments Since this was the first case after the Heller case, the petitioners McDonald, in particular, they asked the courts to reexamine the Privileges and Immunities jurisprudence and to overrule the Slaughterhouse Cases which was the first impression of the Fourteenth Amendment affecting the rights of the citizens of the US and not those of the citizens of the States. These were the arguments put forward by the petitioners and they were analyzed by the courts. McDonald’s first and primary argument presented before the court was that the Second Amendment is for the privileges or immunities of the American citizens and not for the separate states’ citizenship. In the arguments, McDonald’s also examines all the circumstances that were surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War which had led to the deprivation of the right to arms. This was injustice, McDonald argued, and it led to the need of adopting an amendment which would have secured the basic civil rights that were mentioned in the Bill of Rights and protected the federal citizenship4. McDonald supported this argument by the popular meaning and understanding of the terms privileges and immunities at the time of the early republic and also as ascribed in the Fourteenth Amendment. In this examination, it was held that the meaning of these terms covered two sets of overlapping rights. These were the fundamental rights secured in the constitution and those rights that were enumerated by the first eight amendments5. On the other hand, Chicago and Oak Park urged the court that instead of focusing on the Fourteenth Amendment and its framers, the court should reject the implantation of the Bill of Rights under the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The Slaughterhouse Cases were again considered and Chicago and Oak Park held that in those decisions the courts had held that the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause included the rights that were dependent upon the United States citizenship rather than the citizenship of a State. The case of United States v. Cruikshank was also pointed out where the courts held that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States. Presser v. Illinois also held that the right to bear arms was not a privilege or immunity of the United States citizenship. Chicago and Oak Park argue that the doctrine of stare decisis should be used and the courts should uphold the cases that had rejected the incorporation of the Second Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities Clause. In return, McDonald argued that the doctrine of stare decisis should be used when the case is erroneous and they say that depriving the state citizens and their constitutional rights is not a valid option. They also said that the courts should not treat this case as being the first of the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause.6 Critical Assessment and Impact By the majority decision 5-4, the court held that the Second Amendment was to be incorporated by the due process section of the Fourteenth Amendment and the individuals were given a constitutional right to keep arms in their homes for self defense. In the majority opinion, it was noted that the handgun ban put in Chicago in 1982 in order to protect the individuals from injury or death but instead the murder rate of the handgun was increased. Thus, the majority depended upon the Heller decision in which self defense was called a basic right of the citizens and was recognized by many of the legal systems from past to present. The dissenting opinion stated that the law may change many of the states and that the decision exceeded the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment which does not protect the constitutional infringement by states in the same way as it protects federal infringement. If we look at the majority decision, we can see that the courts had provided a judgment which would long impact the whole nation. Constitutionally, every individual should get the right to bear arms for their self defense and philosophically also the rights holds immense value. This was a decision that would have been best for all the citizens since it showed that restricted the arms increased the crime rate. In a democratic country, these rights were necessary and given under the constitution so not only for the U.S as a whole, but it also applied for the states separately. It increases the democratic rights of the individuals. Many of the legal systems, as mentioned in the decision, have implemented the right to self defense and in that context the right to bear arms and to legally register for firearms. Other than the laws, it is also ethically suitable to react in self defense and thus, safe ourselves with the right to possession of arms. All the other states’ laws were considered to be unenforceable which meant that philosophically and theoretically the case was decided to bring in all the states together and give the citizens the rights under the constitution rather than under the state laws. This was a step towards unity and democracy without separating the states from one another7. The impact of this decision on the case laws were that the right of possessing handguns was now confirmed and all the further cases were to be decided through this precedent and not the previous ones. This ruling did not strike down the laws banning the handguns possession in Chicago and Oak Park region, but this ruling had already made those laws unenforceable. The courts siding with McDonald meant that they may reverse the Slaughterhouse line of cases and incorporate the Second Amendment and the entire Bill of Rights against the States. References Christine Orthmann. Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System. NY: Cengage Learning, 2011 Cornelia Eglantine. McDonald V. Chicago. NY: Typpress, 2012. John. Blakeman. The U.S. Supreme Court and New Federalism: From the Rehnquist to the Roberts Court. USA: Rowman & Littlefield, 2012. Kenneth Blackwell and Ken Klukowski. The Blueprint: Obamas Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency.USA: Globe Pequot, 2010. Kenneth Dautrich and David Yalof . American Government: Historical, Popular, and Global Perspectives. NY: Cengage Learning, 2011. Kevin Smith. The Promise and Performance of American Democracy. NY: Cengage Learning, 2011. Otis Stephens and John Scheb. American Constitutional Law: Civil Rights and Liberties.NY: Cengage Learning, 2011. Read More