McDonald v Chicago is the most important gun rights case to follow DC v Heller.  DC v Heller confirmed the right to possess firearms across the USA, regardless of any personal association with a militia, but individual states and municipalities still banned handgun ownership, or made it so difficult to own a firearm that the law was essentially a ban.

Chicago was one of the cities with a virtual ban.  Chicago's ordinances required handguns had to be registered with the city, but no new registrations were accepted since 1983, and all existing registrations required annual renewal with no remedy for an expired registration.  If a handgun registration expired, the owner could never register that handgun again.

While DC v Heller was being decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (after oral arguments were heard),  plans were in the works to have a case to challenge Chicago's handgun ban.  On June 26, 2008,  the same day that the decision was announced for DC v Heller, the McDonald case was filed in federal court in Chicago.  The plaintiffs were the four people pictured below: Otis McDonald (r), lead plaintiff, Colleen and David Lawson, and Adam Orlov (l)  There were also two groups as plaintiffs: Illinois State Rifle Association and Second Amendment Foundation.

Image (c) Chicago Magazine

Oral Arguments were heard on March 2, 2010.  The Supreme Court filed its decision on June 28, 2010, ruling that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution incorporates the Second Amendment protections recognized in DC v Heller.  In other words, the same individual right to keep and bear arms recognized in the previous case DC v Heller cannot be taken away from you by state or local governments. The Supreme Court also sent the case back to lower court to resolve conflicts between Chicago ordinances and the ruling.

McDonald v Chicago and DC v Heller formed an important legal foundation for cases to follow, such as Ezell v Chicago.