In Heller, the core right was the Right to Keep Arms for Self Defense (in the home). In McDonald, it was held that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Fundamental (and thus incorporated as against the States).
This distinction is critical when addressing the lower courts.
Wouldn't the McDonald Case be more applicable to Chicago then? In Mcdonald, if it was held that the "right to KEEP AND BEAR arms" is FUNDAMENTAL, and thus incorporated against the states (and by assumption local governments), then doesn't that mean that the Chicago law against having a handgun in your possession outside of your home, while still on your own property, would run afoul of the McDonald ruling? Wouldn't the McDonald ruling be VERY applicable to Chicago and any lower court which deals with Chicago and the 2nd A.? The protected right is the right to "KEEP AND BEAR" arms. There is only one right protected, however, there are two components which construct that right. I would say the word AND is very key in that regard. But I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one at any time or in any place. I'm just trying to figure out how far Chicago will be allowed to go in violating the Supreme Court findings in McDonald, if not in Heller.