Brummer_McDonald v. City of Chicago

Brummer_McDonald v. City of Chicago

            The McDonald versus the Chicago City [G1] case in the Supreme [G2] was a case regarding constitution interpretation (Duignan, 2014). The particular issue was the second amendment applicability in the states and the municipalities. In 1982, the state of Chicago had passed a law that was contradicting the second amendment by denying the state’s residents to carry guns or keep them at home. The Supreme had handled a similar case in [G3] 2008, which was between Heller and the District of Columbia. The use of the Heller’s case verdict to determine the McDonalds versus the Chicago city was wrong and the court ought to have used the case independently (Duignan, 2014).  [G4] [G5] [G6] 

            McDonald and the city of Chicago began in 2008 when Otis MacDonald among other people and organisations filed a case in the D[G7] istrict Court challenging[G8]  some sections of a 1982 law by the State of Chicago. The law made registration of firearms a prerequisite of possessing the same. The following day the US rifle association and together with others also introduced a case against the policy and the OAK PARK, lll, legislation which restricted carrying or possessing firearms except for the handguns and rifles. The case arrived[G9] [G10]  at the Supreme Court after McDonald, and the re[G11] st lost the lawsuits in the US District courts and the court of appeal (Duignan, 2014).[G12] [G13] [G14] [G15] [G16] [G17] 

 The Supreme Court inherited an already harmonized case from the court of appeal hence McDonald, and the national rifle were on one side as the plaintiff, and the Chicago state was the defe[G18] [G19] ndant. McDonald and the rest were supporting the application of the second amendment in the entire of the federal state while the Chicago state was supporting the legality of every state designing their policies regarding the use of guns in each particular state. The case entirely concerned the contradiction between the Chicago law and the federal law.[G20] [G21] [G22] [G23] [G24] [G25] [G26] [G27] [G28] 

 The legal tussle involved whether the second amendment right and[G29] [G30]  privileges to keep and bear guns were incorporated by the fourteenth amendment immunities and privileges against the states. The question was whether the local or the state government might ban the possession of [G31] [G32] firearms, which[G33]  was a right according to the second amendment. The second amendment categorically reads that ‘a [G34] well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’(Duignan, 2014). [G35] [G36] [G37] [G38] [G39] 

            Petitioners McDonalds and the rest argued that the right to bear and keep firearm was fundamental for personal safety and self-defense and state should be restricted from interfering with the right (Bisakha Sen, 2016). The Chicago state on the hand argued that to contain the escalating crimes in the state and the local governments they had to be allowed to restrict the possession of firearms. Some California attorneys were also in of the right to the citizens to bear and carry gun[G40] s to protect their property, [G41] businesses, and themselves from violent criminals (Nash, 2011).[G42] [G43] 

 Some organizations that were committed to protecting the public’s safety, health and wellbeing were also in support of the limitations to carry or bear handguns. The organizations cited research that shown that there was increased the risk of being killed in regions with high gun ownership than others. The organizations also in support of the Chicago state argued that there was a high risk of injury in those places to women, children, and the adolescents because of keeping guns at home[G44] [G45] [G46] [G47] . The attorneys argued that the use of the regulating the use of firearms in cities and urban areas assisted the administration in maintaining peace[G48] [G49]  (Carter and Binder, 2016).[G50] [G51] [G52] [G53] [G54] 

            Constitutionally, Chicago argued that incorporation of the second amendment against the local authorities and states would disrupt the power balance between the federal state and the individual states. For instance, the United States Conference[G55]  of mayors insisted the requirement of the strict regulation of guns in the major cities and urban centres than in the rural areas. The Chicago state argued that they were near to the people hence understood the local problems more than the federal [G56] [G57] [G58] government, which was detached from the people (Reville, 2011).[G59] [G60] [G61] [G62] 

            Some states were in support of the McDonalds and others arguing that federalism was misplaced the right to bear guns was fundamental. The states in support of McDonald argued that just as the states lack the power to interfere with the basic rights such as the [G63] [G64] freedom of speech, they should not also interfere with the right to bear or keep a firearm. Gold water institute argued that the fourteenth amendment altered the power balance between the federal state and the local states. [G65] The Institute argued that the federalism issue was out of the constitution and should not outweigh the individual protections and liberties[G66] [G67]  (Frow, 2016).[G68] [G69] [G70] [G71] 

            Notably, some states such as New Jersey and Maryland argued against the reestablishment of the privileges and the immunities clause as a limit of the state authority. The states claimed that the reestablishment would throw a great size of state law into question. For instance, they indicated that the [G72] [G73] [G74] Fifth Amendment right to a grand jury and the seventh amendment rights to a jury in the civil cases, which were not incorporated against the states via the due procedure. They argued the amendments would have to incorporate via the privileges and the immunities clause, which would wreak havoc on the established state court system[G75]  (Levinson, 2010).[G76] [G77] [G78] 

            According to the presentation of both sides made the case one of the biggest that the Supreme Court had handled in history. The contradiction between the state law and the federal law brought out the confusion on which law should be followed regarding the possession of handguns. The plaintiff argument of non-interference by the state authorities on fundamental rights seemed valid because the federal law required that. The petitioners felt that the second amendment should be incorporated into the state law interfering with gun handling[G79]  (“Chapter1,” 2016).[G80] [G81] 

            On the hand, the Chicago states and others in support of the state’s authority to restrict gun ownership to reduce crimes in those areas also seemed valid. The argument that incorporating the second amendment against the states would cause problems because it would call for the incorporation of the fifth and the seventh amendments carried a lot of weight. Establishment of the fifth and the seventh amendment would cause [G82] [G83] [G84] [G85] many problems in the State justice system (J, 2012).[G86] [G87] [G88] 

 The Supreme Court had a landmark ruling to make regarding this case. On June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a verdict for the plaintiff. The Court ruled (5-4) that the second amendment to the constitution of the United States that guarantees the “right of the citizens to bear and keep firearms” applies to the local and the state governments, and the federal government as well. The Supreme Court remanded and reversed the decision of the appellate courts (Harkavy, 2010). [G89] [G90] [G91] 

            The Samuel A. Alito, Junior writing for the majority argued that on Heller versus the District of Columbia basis, the second amendment is incorporated. Hence was to be incorporated selectively as applicable to the local states via the due procedure. Alito said that the right to possess and utilize guns by the citizen for conventionally legitimate reason[G92] [G93] s specifically self-defense is rudimental to the ordered American liberty and justice system scheme. The Supreme Court also maintained that the same approach was used in the 1960s to incorporate several rights related to criminal law (Reville, 2010).[G94] 

            The problem with the Supreme Court ruling regarding the case was the reference to various previous decisions. The court used the 1960s and the Heller versus the [G95] [G96] [G97] District of Columbia to make a critical decision that affected the security of the individual states. The ruling was not anchored to the law, and hence it implies that if the previous verdict were wrong, then even this one was wrong. The court evidently misplaced dependency by taking it elsewhere rather than the law.  [G98] [G99] [G100] [G101] [G102] [G103] [G104] [G105] [G106] [G107] 

            The judges also wrongly used the second amendment, which was the law in question in the case. The ruling was like making the law the defendant the judge and the law. The Verdict by the Court also is likely to be used to incorporate the fifth and the seventh amendments, which might be disastrous to the States’ justice system. In referencing the ruling, no valid constitutional reason can be used for the failure to incorporate the fifth and the seventh amendments.[G108]    [G109] [G110] [G111] 

References

Bisakha Sen, B. S. (2013). Gun policy, gun culture & guns across the u.s.: What Makes us safer? doi:10.18258/0082

Carter, J. G., & Binder, M. (2016). firearm violence and effects on concealed gun carrying: large debate and small effects. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. doi:10.1177/0886260516633608

Chapter 1 Guns in America. (2016). Guns and Crime, 1-8. doi:10.1201/9781315450896-2

Duignan, B. (2014, July 7). McDonald v. City of Chicago | law case | Britannica.com. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/event/McDonald-v-City-of-Chicago

Frow, J. (2016). Reading with guns: institutions of interpretation and district of columbia v. Heller. New Literary History47(1), 83-107. doi:10.1353/nlh.2016.0008

Harkavy, J. R. (2010). Supreme Court of the United States Employment Law Commentary 2008 Term. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1469656

J., A. (2012). Gun violence in the united states: A public health epidemic. Public Health – Social and Behavioral Health. doi:10.5772/37428

Levinson, S. (2008). Guns And The Constitution: A Complex Relationship. Reviews in American History36(1), 1-14. doi:10.1353/rah.2008.0017

Nash, J. (2010). Strategy on the united states supreme courtby saul brenner and joseph m. whitmeyer. Political Science Quarterly125(1), 141-144. doi:10.1002/j.1538-165x.2010.tb01979.x

Reville, P. J. (2010). Supreme court to chicago on gun control: go to heller! Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER)8(11). doi:10.19030/jber.v8i11.47

Reville, P. J. (2011). Supreme court guns down state firearm restrictions, the chicago way. Journal of Business Case Studies (JBCS)7(3), 1. doi:10.19030/jbcs.v7i3.4258


Inserted: C

Inserted: S

Inserted: S

Deleted:c

Deleted:s

Deleted:s

Inserted: s

Inserted: C

Inserted: and

Inserted: for

Inserted: ,

Deleted:z

Deleted:c

Deleted:generally

Deleted:s

Deleted:ort

Deleted:s

Inserted: ,

Inserted: ,

Inserted: ular

Inserted: art

Inserted: i

Inserted: as

Deleted:s

Deleted:ere

Deleted:e own

Deleted:s

Deleted:ecif

Inserted: lv

Inserted: inv

Inserted: ight

Inserted: ere

Inserted: s

Inserted: The s

Deleted:c

Deleted:ncern

Deleted:as

Deleted:ay

Deleted:S

Inserted: gu

Inserted: s

Deleted:firearms i

Deleted: order

Inserted:  a

Inserted: sk

Inserted: the

Inserted: ing

Inserted: ing

Inserted: in

Deleted:,

Deleted:p

Deleted:obab

Deleted:lity

Deleted:to

Inserted: C

Inserted: e

Inserted: jo

Inserted: the m

Deleted:c

Deleted:l

Deleted:ge

Deleted:e

Inserted: sic

Inserted: b

Inserted:  a

Inserted:  the

Inserted: I

Deleted:s

Deleted:fundament

Deleted:l

Deleted:i

Inserted: indic

Inserted: im

Inserted: cl

Inserted: o

Deleted:rgu

Deleted:st

Deleted:i

Inserted: o

Deleted:aga

Deleted:s

Inserted: t

Inserted: shme

Inserted: bl

Inserted: Est

Deleted:Incorpor

Deleted:t

Deleted:o

Deleted:in

Deleted:av

Deleted: of

Inserted: te

Inserted: egitim

Deleted:wful

Inserted: o

Inserted: decis

Inserted: the

Inserted: ,

Inserted: ,

Inserted: of

Inserted: o

Inserted: decis

Deleted:rul

Deleted:g

Deleted:rul

Deleted:g

Deleted:in

Inserted: In r

Deleted:R

Deleted:there is

Deleted: that

"We Offer Paper Writing Services on all Disciplines, Make an Order Now and we will be Glad to Help"