McDonald v. Chicago, EXPLAINED [AP Gov Required Supreme Court Cases]

GET FOLLOW-ALONG NOTEGUIDES for this video: bit.ly/3XMSawp
AP HEIMLER REVIEW GUIDE (formerly known as the Ultimate Review Packet):
+AP Gov Heimler Review Guide: bit.ly/3rfXr2Y
Additional HEIMLER REVIEW GUIDES (formerly known as Ultimate Review Packet):
+AP US History: bit.ly/44p4pRL
+AP World History: bit.ly/46rfHH1
+AP European History: bit.ly/3PCPyiw
+AP Essay CRAM Course (DBQ, LEQ, SAQ Help): bit.ly/3XuwaWN
HEIMLER’S HISTORY MERCH! / @heimlershistory
Tiktok: @steveheimler
Instagram: @heimlers_history
Heimler's History DISCORD Server: / discord
In this video Heimler teaches you what you need to know about a case required for the AP Government curriculum, namely, McDonald v. Chicago. This is a case about the second amendment and the right to bear arms. It came on the heels of another case, Heller v. District of Columbia, which held that the second amendment protected a person's right to own a gun in a FEDERAL district. The McDonald case applied this ruling to the states.

[@heimlershistory]

CORRECTION: The second amendment was incorporated through the 14th amendment's DUE PROCESS clause, not the EQUAL PROTECTION clause (as I mistakenly say in the video). Sorry for the confusion!

[@isatalebi7873]

Nice Victor Frankenstein painting on your wall.

[@xEqualsRandom]

It would really help if you uploaded a new version of the video with the correction.

[@Rolando-Castro]

Without knowing the case, I believed this case was about the McDonald's restaurant that has its headquarters in Chicago.

[@Hallevy12]

It seems from the College Board that selective incorporation comes from the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the equal protection clause as you mention about two minutes in. The College Board question is specifically about McDonald v. Chicago. Curious if you can clarify. Thank you for all these videos - they are a great resource.

[@Adam_Carbone]

Selective incorporation from the due process clause has to do with how the Federal regulations (Bill of Rights, 2nd amendment) are applied at a state level to prevent deprivation of natural rights while the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th that he mentions in the video has to do with how the other states/cities with similar 2nd amendment restrictions had to change them in order to fit the new terms.

[@firewall23o78]

@@Adam_Carbone which one is it because I saw this for the SCOTUS frq and used this as the legal doctrine for it.

[@Adam_Carbone]

@@firewall23o78 Both points that I made in my original reply apply to the court case that he was referencing, he just said it the wrong way around

[@loganfrench9902]

@@Adam_Carbone thank you 😊

[@iammrbeat]

You're right, I think he accidentally misspoke there.

[@deaondre]

Thank you for the video. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

[@heimlershistory]

You are most welcome

[@rigobatiancila5824]

This was on my scotus case frq from this years exam. Glad I reviewed it the night before lol

[@akhil6925]

Thank you so much, keep making these videos!

[@shaankalyani]

Thank you 🙏

[@user-jb7pe7wf1z]

mcdonald wanted a gun, but chicago has rly restrictive handgun laws.
constitutional principle: right to bear arms
- in dc v heller, they thought that gun laws were too restrictive
decision
- in favor of mcdonald, chicago gun laws are too restrictive.
- heller only applied to federal, but mcdondalds applied to STATES --> selective incoorperation

[@Iamthesushi]

BRO YOURE MY ROMAN EMPIRE

[@ZHuntXFDX7125]

Thank you sir this helps so much!!!

[@peytenlaster6116]

best of luck tm

[@JohnFortner1]

thanks!

[@mr.chocolate6300]

Thank you for the information sir

[@heimlershistory]

Heck yes 🙌🏻

[@andrewrandolph8278]

It’s not a balance of public safety and rights. It’s text as informed by history and tradition.

[@rednapoleon346]

Thanks you so much, I am studying the day before, and this helps a bunch.

[@heimlershistory]

Glad to hear it!

[@soorajgupta5680]

CLUTCH

[@CodyCoonrod]

Would this apply to a future gun regulation law? Could this be used to block a federal gun regulation law? Thanks!

[@soupfountain]

went through every corner of the internet just to come back to heimler for a satisfactory explanation

[@bercaferca4554]

Thank you for this particular insight:
“The 14th amendment applies the bill of rights to the states” haha ppreciate it, the 2nd amendment being “federal” yeah

[@Bidimus1]

Hugo Black was right on total incorpartion. He was a compicated Justice to be sure but on this issue it would have made things a lot more consistant than waiting for a person or persons have enough money to to shop for the right case to do what should have been done in the 1930's

[@sophia8796]

Wish I watched this earlier

[@charlesb4958]

Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

[@therankmaster9279]

Is that a required one

[@xEqualsRandom]

Nope

[@American_2]

You saying this isn't about big macs and fries?

[@jrsun]

How does unbanning guns make Chicago safer. And also how did these gangmembers get guns if they were banned in Chicago? Blackmarket? Travelled to a different city to buy?

[@TomBarbashev]

Banning guns just takes them from good people's hands.
Stop that crap.

[@cheegus4160]

It tampers with peoples to defend themselves, legislation does not best reality which clearly displays the easy ability for criminal access to firearms. A criminal is a criminal because they break the law, restricting firearm ownership only reduces the options for citizens to effectively defend their life, liberty and property

[@flyingphoenix113]

Criminals, by definition, do not care what the law says. This is why disarmament laws tend to hurt law abiding citizens more than they actually reduce crime. The only way disarmament laws work is if there is also a substantive reduction in access to violent weapons (which, in the US, is completely impossible. By some estimates, the US has more guns in public circulation than the rest of the world's combined non-military population.)

[@tyevanswtf]

GREAT VIDEO.... Not studying law, just trying to understand how half of todays bills can be upheld.... It seems this ruling could be applied to Illinois recent magazine bans. - -even if you were to apply the "2 steps" the state would argue the magazine ban is for public safety. Not sure why no one here has taken it up - seems easy to argue that point given zero evidence of such. - the only magazines/guns applicable to such an argument were unlawfully obtained and illegally owned. Public safety would argue the law abiding citizens are safer with high capacity IMO. ... couldnt you argue the 14th ? These magazine bans do not provide equal protection between individuals "grandfathered" in and the average citizen. - - - its all frustrating - 1A Right to free speech. PERIOD - 2A should be litigated symmetrically. Living in a free society is inherent with risk.... Besides - Free speech is more dangerous than any gun

[@andrewrandolph8278]

It’s not a public safety question as he says in the video. It’s a test of text as informed by history and tradition. This is the mistake the lower courts made when applying these precedents but the founders already balanced public safety when they wrote the second amendment. The only founding era tradition of a permissible arms bans are those after both dangerous and unusual arms, and these magazines that are banned are definitely not unusual. Dangerous? All weapons can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

[@ademeter_2316]

First

[@smooveking773]

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED WE NEED TO WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY WITH ALL BAR MEMBERS AND TERRORIST

[@desssip1]

U lelia mi