McDonald v. City of Chicago
http://dbpedia.org/resource/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago an entity of type: Thing
맥도널드 대 시카고 사건(McDonald v. Chicago)은 미국 헌법 수정조항 제2조가 주 정부에게도 적용되는지에 대한 미국 연방 대법원의 판례이다. 맥도널드는 시카고 시의 총기 소지 규제법이 미국 헌법 수정조항 제2조가 보장하는 총기 소유 권리를 침해한다고 하여 소를 제기하였다. 시카고 시 정부는 수정헌법 제2조가 주정부에는 적용되지 않는다고 주장하였다. 연방 대법원은 미국 헌법 수정조항 제2조가 수정조항 제14조를 통해 전환되어 주 정부에도 적용된다고 보았다.
rdf:langString
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 742 (2010), foi um caso histórico de decisão da Suprema Corte dos EUA que concluiu que o direito de um indivíduo de "manter e portar armas", conforme protegido pela Segunda Emenda, é incorporado pela Cláusula de Devido Processo da e é, portanto, aplicável contra os Estados. A decisão esclareceu a incerteza deixada na sequência do caso Distrito de Columbia v. Heller (de 2008) quanto ao escopo dos direitos de armas em relação aos Estados.
rdf:langString
麦克唐纳诉芝加哥案（McDonald v. Chicago）是美国联邦最高法院判决的关于枪支管理的一件具有重要意义的诉讼案。最高法院最后以5票支持、4票反对的结果作出裁决，认为受到美国宪法第二修正案保护的个人携带武器的权利，根据第十四修正案正当法律程序，同样适用于各州。同时，这一判决还厘清了（District of Columbia v. Heller）后关于各州持抢权利的疑问。 美国第七巡回上诉法院最初以（United States v. Cruikshank）、（Presser v. Illinois）、（Miller v. Texas）等判例为据，在（NRA v. Chicago）中，支持芝加哥市禁止手枪、限制步枪与猎枪的相关条例。2010年6月28日，最高法院推翻了第七巡回上诉法院的判决，并将此案发回上诉法院重审。
rdf:langString
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms", as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
McDonald v. City of Chicago
rdf:langString
맥도널드 대 시카고 사건
rdf:langString
Caso McDonald v. Cidade de Chicago
rdf:langString
麦克唐纳诉芝加哥案
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Otis McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.
xsd:integer
23070367
xsd:integer
1123531009
rdf:langString
Stevens
rdf:langString
Breyer
xsd:integer
8
rdf:langString
Ginsburg, Sotomayor
rdf:langString
Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas ; Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy
<second>
172800.0
<second>
25920.0
xsd:integer
742
xsd:integer
561
xsd:gMonthDay
--03-02
xsd:integer
2010
rdf:langString
McDonald v. Chicago,
xsd:gMonthDay
--06-28
xsd:integer
2010
rdf:langString
Members of Congress Kay Bailey Hutchison, Jon Tester, Mark Souder and Mike Ross filed an amicus brief together.
rdf:langString
Otis McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al.
rdf:langString
The right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home is protected under the Second Amendment, and is incorporated against the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded.
rdf:langString
JonTester.jpg
rdf:langString
Kay_Bailey_Hutchison_official_photo.jpg
rdf:langString
Mark_Souder.jpg
rdf:langString
Mike_Ross_Official.jpg
rdf:langString
McDonald v. City of Chicago
rdf:langString
Alito
rdf:langString
Supreme Court
xsd:integer
2
xsd:integer
200
rdf:langString
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms", as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states. Initially, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), and Miller v. Texas (1894). The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale. The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald. The oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010. On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment, thus protecting those rights from infringement by state and local governments. It then remanded the case back to the Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendment.
rdf:langString
맥도널드 대 시카고 사건(McDonald v. Chicago)은 미국 헌법 수정조항 제2조가 주 정부에게도 적용되는지에 대한 미국 연방 대법원의 판례이다. 맥도널드는 시카고 시의 총기 소지 규제법이 미국 헌법 수정조항 제2조가 보장하는 총기 소유 권리를 침해한다고 하여 소를 제기하였다. 시카고 시 정부는 수정헌법 제2조가 주정부에는 적용되지 않는다고 주장하였다. 연방 대법원은 미국 헌법 수정조항 제2조가 수정조항 제14조를 통해 전환되어 주 정부에도 적용된다고 보았다.
rdf:langString
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 742 (2010), foi um caso histórico de decisão da Suprema Corte dos EUA que concluiu que o direito de um indivíduo de "manter e portar armas", conforme protegido pela Segunda Emenda, é incorporado pela Cláusula de Devido Processo da e é, portanto, aplicável contra os Estados. A decisão esclareceu a incerteza deixada na sequência do caso Distrito de Columbia v. Heller (de 2008) quanto ao escopo dos direitos de armas em relação aos Estados.
rdf:langString
麦克唐纳诉芝加哥案（McDonald v. Chicago）是美国联邦最高法院判决的关于枪支管理的一件具有重要意义的诉讼案。最高法院最后以5票支持、4票反对的结果作出裁决，认为受到美国宪法第二修正案保护的个人携带武器的权利，根据第十四修正案正当法律程序，同样适用于各州。同时，这一判决还厘清了（District of Columbia v. Heller）后关于各州持抢权利的疑问。 美国第七巡回上诉法院最初以（United States v. Cruikshank）、（Presser v. Illinois）、（Miller v. Texas）等判例为据，在（NRA v. Chicago）中，支持芝加哥市禁止手枪、限制步枪与猎枪的相关条例。2010年6月28日，最高法院推翻了第七巡回上诉法院的判决，并将此案发回上诉法院重审。
rdf:langString
Thomas
rdf:langString
Scalia
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
32774