Skip to main content
Unpublished Paper
Staring Down the Sights at McDonald v. City of Chicago: Why the Second Amendment Deserves the Kevlar Protection of Strict Scrutiny
ExpressO (2010)
  • James J. Williamson, II, Villanova University
Abstract

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court found that a federal law that restricted the possession of handguns within a federal enclave to be in direct conflict with the Second Amendment, and therefore, unconstitutional. Two years after that decision, the Supreme Court, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, held that the Second Amendment is applicable to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In both cases, however, the High Court failed to articulate a standard of review by which future Second Amendment challenges should be adjudicated. This note argues that the appropriate standard of review is strict scrutiny, with some carefully articulated exceptions that are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Furthermore, through a careful analysis of Heller and McDonald, this note suggests that the Court is currently aiming in that direction.

Keywords
  • Second Amendment,
  • strict scrutiny,
  • McDonald v. City of Chicago
Disciplines
Publication Date
November 4, 2010
Citation Information
James J. Williamson. "Staring Down the Sights at McDonald v. City of Chicago: Why the Second Amendment Deserves the Kevlar Protection of Strict Scrutiny" ExpressO (2010)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/james_williamson/1/