Learn · read a page at a time
Page 10 of 21
Chapter 5 · The Second Amendment
Page 2 of 2 in this chapter
From the page before
What did District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) hold?
The answer: That it protects an individual right, while also stating the right is not unlimited
Why: Heller held the right is individual. In the same case it listed kinds of rules it saw as likely lawful.
What did McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) add?
The answer: That the right applies against state and local governments too
Why: McDonald applied the right to state and local government. So it is not limited to federal ground like Washington DC, where Heller came from.
Almost nobody in mainstream American law argues either extreme. Almost nobody says the amendment protects nothing. Almost nobody says it bars every rule.
The real fight is over which rules fit the historical tradition test. It is going on right now, case by case. Lower courts are giving different answers.
Know that, and the news makes sense. The argument is about the edge of the right. It is not about whether the right is there.
Before you turn the page
Where does most serious current legal disagreement sit?
Trying to recall a thing before you read it again is what makes it stick. That is why the question is here.
Nothing is scored. Nothing is saved. No one sees your answer, and there is no account to make.