District of Columbia v Heller
Right to bear arms
Amendment II
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the
people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
(“Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution”)
Case Brief
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008)
Case Overview:
Per existing statute, the District of Columbia prohibited possession of an unlicensed
handgun inside the home. In addition to this rule, they also stipulated that in most cases
even licensed firearms were required to be kept unloaded, disassembled or made
inoperable through trigger locks unless they were located within a business or they were
to be used in the course of legal leisure pursuits. Police Officer D. A. Heller’s application
to register a handgun to be kept in his home for self-defense purposes was denied.
Officer Heller filed suit in federal court, stating that both the city’s ban and associated
restrictions were unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The first court (district)
rejected the case, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, ruled in Heller’s
favor, and subsequently the matter was presented to the Supreme Court who decided
to review the issue.
Issues
Does D.C.’s prohibition of the ownership of operational handguns in a home violate the
Second Amendment?
Holding
Yes, a total ban on possession of handguns in the home and/or the requirement to
render ANY legal firearm unusable for the purpose of immediate self defense violates
the Second Amendment.
Rule of Law
The Second Amendment’s purpose was to ensure the creation of future militia, but that
doesn’t change the fact that the Amendment was designed to create a right for
individual (s) to bear arms, regardless of their military status. While the right is NOT to
be considered unlimited, restrictions exist for the purpose of public safety, such as some
regulations that can ban firearms in sensitive places (i.e. schools, government buildings
aso.), ban possession by certain individuals (i.e. convicted felons, mentally ill) or having
general registration requirements, however, as long as none of these categories apply
to Officer Heller, the District must allow him to register his hand gun and issue him a
license to carry it in his home.
As per the above graphic, the Court narrowly (5 – 4 majority) decided the case in favor
of Heller. Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Alito, Thomas and
Kennedy, delivered the opinion for the majority, holding that the second amendment
protects an individual’s right to own weapons regardless of their standing with the
federal government and that “militia” was not restricted to only those currently serving in
the military because the term once referred to any male capable of bearing arms. The
intent behind the amendment (at the time it was written) was to “guarantee an individual
right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Therefore, a ban on
weapons commonly used for purposes of self-defense as well as requiring them to be
kept non-functional in the home, violates the Second amendment.
This decision represents a significant departure from earlier Supreme Court decisions
involving interpretations of the Second Amendment. For example, in “United States v.
Miller” the Court had previously, in an unanimous decision, held that “the ‘obvious
purpose’ of the Second Amendment was to ‘assure the continuation and render
possible the effectiveness of’ the state militia, and the Amendment must be interpreted
and applied with that end in view.” (“The Heller Decision and What It Means”)
Furthermore, the Heller ruling also created significant difficulties for lower courts, since
there was no clear guidance given on how they should evaluate and decide cases
involving Second Amendment challenges, especially if these cases involve different
types of weapons from those mentioned in Heller or legislators attempting to
address/establish gun violence prevention measures.
In any case, while D.C. may have had specific reasons to establish a ban/restrictions on
the ownership of handguns, under the Second Amendment they could not do so legally.
Also – what is the point of allowing a handgun in a home but making it completely
unusable if it is needed quickly? I do agree with the basic restrictions that felons or the
mentally ill should not be able to legally possess ANY weapon capable of hurting a lot of
people, and that even those that can buy, and own guns should register them in some
fashion – but D.C. is/was definitely asking too much. Gifford’s Law Center (see source
below) is an excellent resource to research the issue further as needed, however, for
my part I believe that the Court made the right decision.
Sources used in Writing and Research
“District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).” Justia Law, Justia, 2019,
[Link]/cases/federal/us/554/570/.
“District of Columbia v. Heller.” [Link], 2019, [Link]/cases/2007/07-290.
“Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution.” Findlaw, Thomson Reuters, 2019,
[Link]/[Link].
“The Battle Over the Second Amendment: District of Columbia v. Heller.” NAAG,
National Association of Attorneys General, 2019,
[Link]/publications/naagazette/volume-2-number-3/the-battle-over-the-
second-amendment-district-of-columbia-v.-[Link].
“The Heller Decision and What It Means.” Giffords Law Center, Giffords Law Center to
Prevent Gun Violence, 2018, [Link]/gun-laws/the-second-
amendment/the-supreme-court-the-second-amendment/dc-v-heller/.