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!
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
![McDonald v. Chicago, EXPLAINED [AP Gov Required Supreme Court Cases]](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
