Talk:McDonald v. City of Chicago

Writing Quality Issue
The doctrine of incorporation concerns whether provisions of the Bill of Rights are "incorporated into" the 14th Amendment. This is not common knowledge. Though the article does get around to explaining this, it uses the term "incorporation" more than once before doing so. This is confusing. Agent Cooper (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, very little of the terminology pertaining to the Supreme Court is "common knowledge". Relevant to its subject matter, incorporation is a basic term. Install a wiki link on the word to the "incorporation" article, if you feel its not clear enough. Napkin65 (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * entry uch badly written - there is no conclusion m,it was remanded, what happended then?

Comment: It is not just a writing quality issue but it has appearances of bias. The article falsely claims that the Slaughter-House Cases excluded the Bill of Rights form incorporation by 14th Amendment, while in the decision issued on April 14, 1873, in that matter, the Supreme Court merely ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause affected only rights of US citizenship, not state citizenship. Obviously, the Bill of Rights guarantees rights of U.S. citizens so the above insinuation is patently false, and fallacious interpretations notwithstanding. 172.88.206.28 (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That was more confusing than the subject section of the article. :-)  North8000 (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Related cases
There are a number of related cases working their way through the US court system now, where each one uses the McDonald decision applying the 2nd Amendment to the States as a foundation, and conceivably obtaining clarification through evolving case law as to just how far reaching McDonald and Heller will be. There are reliable sources on each of these cases, so they could possibly be used to improve the article in the Related cases section to show legacy effect on McDonald. Mvialt (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Drake v. Jerejian - has filed for certiori at the Supreme Court following a 3rd circuit decision allowing the State of New Jersey to severely restrict weapons possession to those people that show some sort of specific and strong need.
 * Cooke v. Hickenlooper - challenges a Colorado law on how large gun magazines can be. Apparently has all or nearly all of the elected sheriffs of the state supporting the challenge that suggests the legislature may have erred in making the law.  The State is taking the opposite position.
 * Wilson v. Cook County - challenges a Chicago/Cook County law that restricts the kinds of weapons that individuals can own under the 2nd Amendment, and whether the government's definition might be overbroad.
 * New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York - related to New York City's "Title 38" which restricts any gun, once licensed, from being taken outside the city limits (say to shoot at a target range, or to shoot in a competition, etc.) It appears the City is arguing that this is a necessary restriction on 2nd Amendment rights while the plaintiffs are taking the other side.

Reference missing regarding alleged non-applicability of 14th Amendment to Bill of Rights against states
QUOTE Slaughter-House determined that the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause did not apply the Bill of Rights to the actions of states (and by extension, local governments). UNQUOTE

Well, an exact reference to such determination is missing; the article Slaughter-House Cases does not contain any mention of such determination. In the decision issued on April 14, 1873, in that matter, the Supreme Court merely ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause affected only rights of US citizenship, not state citizenship. Obviously, the Bill of Rights guarantees rights of U.S. citizens so the above reference does not support the quoted claim.172.88.206.28 (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

link to docket dead
I'm not sure why, but the current link to the case on the docket is dead: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08-1521.htm

This one works, however: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/08-1521.html

But I don't know how to substitute it for the info box in the top right of the article.

Phantom in ca (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Extensive evidence by Adumbrativus suggests that the two variants are in similar circulation and thus there is no pressing need to move per WP:TITLECHANGES. Plus, Bluebook (seems to) favor the current title. No such user (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

McDonald v. City of Chicago → McDonald v. Chicago – McDonald v. Chicago appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME. The Oyez Project, Cornell Law School , Bill of Rights Institute , and when I looked it up the hyperlink for the Supreme Court page just said McDonald v. Chicago, obviously it gives the full title upon entering. The "City of" part is already excluded from a lot of this article including the infobox, and the more simple version has over 10 million more hits on Google. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

00:08, 13 January 2015 Good Olfactory talk contribs block 57 bytes +57  Good Olfactory moved page McDonald v. Chicago to McDonald v. City of Chicago over redirect: name of case per Manual_of_Style/Legal; following Bluebook by a still-active admin so perhaps that rationale should be considered. Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – Yes, McDonald v. Chicago is the common name, I believe. — Mudwater (Talk) 18:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral Which means OK with me. North8000 (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I note this would reverse
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Perhaps Good Olfactory could explain this to us. — Mudwater (Talk) 05:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per nom and I see no reason for any guideline to override COMMONNAME including the guideline for legal case names. --В²C ☎ 21:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Usage is mixed and not clearly in favor of one or the other. Google Scholar "McDonald v. Chicago" (1360 results), Google Scholar "McDonald v. City of Chicago" (2550 results); Google "McDonald v. Chicago" (81.5k results), Google "McDonald v. City of Chicago" (53.3k results); Google nGrams (essentially even). This is not the sort of significant majority contemplated by WP:COMMONNAME, and I would not decide on the basis of that. I think the guideline of MOS:LAW, to follow Bluebook and include "City of" when it begins the name of a party, is as good a rule as any, and would be consistent with titles such as Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., Kelo v. City of New London, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, etc. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Small point of clarification: are you saying that MOS:LAW says to include "City of" when it begins the name of a party? Or is just that that's what Bluebook does and MOS:LAW says to follow Bluebook? If it's the former, could you provide a pointer to which section this is in? (It doesn't actually affect my !vote in this case, I'm more just curious.) Colin M (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Good question, it's the latter. MOS:LAW suggests to use Bluebook format in general, but MOS:LAW itself does not address this issue specifically. Adumbrativus (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment If using "City of" is what is expected under MOS:LAW then I would like to say I have changed my mind an oppose this proposition. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Now I'm not sure what to think, so I'm redacting my previous comment. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Data provided by Adumbrativus suggests that both titles have about equal claim to being called the common name. So I think it makes sense to use Bluebook as a tiebreaker per MOS:LAW. Colin M (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)