Question

what was the main conclusion of the supreme court's 2008 decision in district of columbia v. heller and its 2010 decision in mcdonald v. chicago? group of answer choices cities and states can ban gun ownership, but the federal government cannot. governments can ban ownership of guns, except for people who serve in the military or the national guard. the second amendment applies only to federal law, not state law. citizens are allowed to own guns for legitimate purposes, such as protecting the home. governments cannot place any restrictions on gun ownership.

Answer 1

The Supreme Court's decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) established that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns, especially for self-defense within the home, and that this right is applicable to state law via the Fourteenth Amendment.

Step-by-step explanation:

The main conclusion of the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller and its 2010 decision in McDonald v. Chicago was that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms for certain legitimate purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court found that some gun control laws violated this right, which was initially applied to the federal government and the District of Columbia, as it is not a state. The McDonald v. Chicago decision extended this ruling by incorporating this right against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, suggesting that state laws could also be unconstitutional if they infringe on the Second Amendment. However, the Court has not regarded the right to bear arms as absolute, allowing for some gun control measures to remain in effect, as evidenced by the 2015 decision concerning San Francisco's stringent gun regulations.