McDonald v. Chicago held that the Second Amendment is incorporated to apply to state and local governments. Which statement best reflects this decision?

McDonald v. Chicago held that the Second Amendment is incorporated to apply to state and local governments. Which statement best reflects this decision?

• A. The Second Amendment Is Incorporated To Apply To State And Local Governments
• B. It Remains The Federal Government's Protection Only
• C. It Applies To Individuals Only In Federal Territories
• D. It Does Not Apply To Gun Ownership

Answer: (A)

The main idea being tested is how a right can be applied to both the federal government and the states through incorporation. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Court held that the Second Amendment, as interpreted in Heller to protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, is binding on state and local governments via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. This means the states cannot infringe on that core right in the same way the federal government cannot, so state and local gun-control laws must respect this right. The decision illustrates selective incorporation—using the Fourteenth Amendment to extend a fundamental federal right to state action. It does not limit the protection to federal territories, nor does it claim there is no right to own guns; rather, it confirms that gun ownership is a fundamental right protected against state and local infringement.

The main idea being tested is how a right can be applied to both the federal government and the states through incorporation. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Court held that the Second Amendment, as interpreted in Heller to protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, is binding on state and local governments via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. This means the states cannot infringe on that core right in the same way the federal government cannot, so state and local gun-control laws must respect this right. The decision illustrates selective incorporation—using the Fourteenth Amendment to extend a fundamental federal right to state action. It does not limit the protection to federal territories, nor does it claim there is no right to own guns; rather, it confirms that gun ownership is a fundamental right protected against state and local infringement.