Which statement best identifies how the Second Amendment was interpreted in the McDonald v. Chicago case?

Which statement best identifies how the Second Amendment was interpreted in the McDonald v. Chicago case?(1 point)

1: The Supreme Court does not have the authority to interpret any amendment in the Constitution.

2: The Second Amendment was interpreted to include the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

3: The Second Amendment was interpreted to include the rights included in the First Amendment

4: The Supreme Court extended rights that are not explicitly outlined in the Constitution.

Answer: 2: The Second Amendment was interpreted to include the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In the McDonald V. Chicago case of 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, which is applicable to an individual state is fully applicable via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In essence, the scope of the Second Amendment protection applied not only on federal level but also on state and local governments, thus extending an already existing federal court judgment to all tiers of government. For the first time, the Court had articulated, as an individual right, the possession of firearms for lawful purposes as a fundamental liberty whose protection does not depend on the geographical stage