| Abstract | This study focused on ascertaining the impact of the 2010 Supreme Court decision of McDonald v. Chicago on state gun legislation. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Court declared the Second Amendment to protect a fundamental individual right to own firearms that states are prohibited from infringing. To determine if this landmark case has had any impact on state-level policy, the study first surveyed the gun legislation passed by state legislatures between 2007 and 2012, coding them as either less regulatory or more regulatory and comparing the results before and after McDonald. The results were also compared to other variables, including political party, crime rates, and shooting incidents. The general trend in state gun legislation showed that less restrictive and more restrictive gun policy covary, both spiking in the year after McDonald and its precursor District of Columbia v. Heller. The study then conducted four case studies of post- McDonald legislation to determine if and to what extent the case exerted any influence. Results showed that the case exerted a short-term influence that was uniform between types of gun legislation, serving to bring the issue of gun policy to legislative attention rather than serving as an independent policy prescription. Legislative dynamics and the influence on Castle Doctrine laws are also discussed. |
