Final answer:
The Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago ruled that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that is applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, extending the protections recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller beyond federal enclaves.
Step-by-step explanation:
Reasoning Behind McDonald v. Chicago Decision
The Supreme Court's rationale in the McDonald v. Chicago case was grounded in the concept of selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To summarize, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that warrants protection from state infringement. This represents an extension of the Second Amendment protections recognized in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, which applied only to federal enclaves. By concluding that individual rights such as the right to keep and bear arms are essential for maintaining liberty, the Court applied them to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, strengthening the interpretation that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights limit not just the federal government but state governments as well.