DC v Heller 2008
● What was the case about?
○ Landmark case that clarified the interpretation of the Second
Amendment to the constitution
○ Focused on a law in Washington DC that banned possession of
handguns and required that long guns be kept disassembled or with
trigger locks - the case judged whether this was constitutional
● What was the SCOTUS decision - what was the justification for the decision?
○ The ruling was 5-4 in favour of the second amendment protects an
individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defence, therefore, it
declared the Washington law unconstitutional
○ Endorsed the ‘individual right’ theory of the second amendment - “the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
○ Antonin Scalia led the decision
● In what way did the decision mean the Constitution evolved?
○ This ruling goes further than simply the right to bear arms, declaring
that the right to bear arms cannot be infringed in a person’s own home
regardless of state gun laws
○ The individual right interpretation goes further than previous
interpretations of the second amendment by suggesting it protects an
individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes,
such as self-defence within the home. This is further than previous
rulings which suggested that it only protected the collective right of
states to maintain militias.
McDonald v City of Chicago 2010
● What was the case about?
○ The case dealt with incorporating the Second Amendment’s right to
bear arms to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause.
● What was the SCOTUS decision - what was the justification for the decision?
○ SCOTUS held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear
arms is applicable to state and local governments, not just the federal
government.
○ 5-4 majority in favour of McDonald
● In what way did the decision mean the Constitution evolved?
○ The decision extended the individual’s right to possess firearms for
self-defence beyond federal jurisdictions, impacting state and local
regulations on gun ownership.
○ This was done after a man, McDonald, wanted to own a handgun to
protect himself as he thought that a shotgun would not suffice.
However, Chicago had a ban on handguns due to gang-related
warfare.
● What was the case about?
○ Landmark case that clarified the interpretation of the Second
Amendment to the constitution
○ Focused on a law in Washington DC that banned possession of
handguns and required that long guns be kept disassembled or with
trigger locks - the case judged whether this was constitutional
● What was the SCOTUS decision - what was the justification for the decision?
○ The ruling was 5-4 in favour of the second amendment protects an
individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defence, therefore, it
declared the Washington law unconstitutional
○ Endorsed the ‘individual right’ theory of the second amendment - “the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
○ Antonin Scalia led the decision
● In what way did the decision mean the Constitution evolved?
○ This ruling goes further than simply the right to bear arms, declaring
that the right to bear arms cannot be infringed in a person’s own home
regardless of state gun laws
○ The individual right interpretation goes further than previous
interpretations of the second amendment by suggesting it protects an
individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes,
such as self-defence within the home. This is further than previous
rulings which suggested that it only protected the collective right of
states to maintain militias.
McDonald v City of Chicago 2010
● What was the case about?
○ The case dealt with incorporating the Second Amendment’s right to
bear arms to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause.
● What was the SCOTUS decision - what was the justification for the decision?
○ SCOTUS held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear
arms is applicable to state and local governments, not just the federal
government.
○ 5-4 majority in favour of McDonald
● In what way did the decision mean the Constitution evolved?
○ The decision extended the individual’s right to possess firearms for
self-defence beyond federal jurisdictions, impacting state and local
regulations on gun ownership.
○ This was done after a man, McDonald, wanted to own a handgun to
protect himself as he thought that a shotgun would not suffice.
However, Chicago had a ban on handguns due to gang-related
warfare.
