How does McDonald v. Chicago affect the Second Amendment?

The case of McDonald v. Chicago is significant in the context of the Second Amendment because it addressed the issue of whether the right to keep and bear arms, as outlined in the Second Amendment, is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment is indeed incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects citizens from infringement by state and local governments.

This means that the right to bear arms is not just a federal right, but is also applicable at the state level, ensuring that individuals have the fundamental right to own firearms for self-defense and other lawful purposes. McDonald v. Chicago effectively reinforced the notion that rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights cannot be violated by state laws, thereby extending the scope of the Second Amendment significantly.

In contrast, options relating to the limitations on firearm ownership or the assertion that the Second Amendment only applies federally do not accurately capture the implications of this landmark ruling.