SUPREME© court

District of Columbia vs Heller 2008


For my class Policy we learned about the Supreme Court and the many cases they handle a year. The one I choose to focus on was Heller v District of Columbia. The main issue with this was that the Second Amendment relates heavily to the right of self defense. With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled that a total ban on handguns in the home is unconstitutional because the reference to arms in the amendment had to include a category so common as handguns. It also said that trigger locks on guns and having guns assembled prevented them from being used in self defense. This also affects the self defense purpose of the Second Amendment. Since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected as well.

The District of Columbia Code made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm. This also banned the registration of handguns totally.There was a way around it though, the police chief could give him a one year licence for a firearm. This case is about how the correct license to carry a firearm. This case was historic because the DC law challenged the second amendment and the legality of defending your home. He wasn't bringing the gun out, it was only at his house. The main question of the case was. “Do the provisions of the District of Columbia Code that restrict the licensing of handguns and require licensed firearms kept in the home to be kept nonfunctional violate the Second Amendment?” This was a quote from Affords law Center which really thought related to the text.

The defendant, the District of Columbia, passed the law to try to stop a big increase in gun violence in the city. The lawyers for the plaintiff Heller at all were financed by Robert Levy of the Cato institute. They thought it was good case to make it to the Supreme Court because it was so outrageous. An interesting fact is that Levy never owned a gun.

DC v. Heller was aimed for a group that would be diverse in all ways such as backgrounds such as gender, race, economic background, and age, so they selected six plaintiffs from their mid 20s to early 60s, 6 men and women, four of the where white and two of them were black so basically a spectrum of different people.. This was a very smart thing to do because they are choosing people from so many different lives and not all a liberal or conservative crowd. The main plaintiff was Dick Anthony Heller. Heller felt as if his constitutional rights were violated. He felt that the second amendment was totally disregarded.

According to Justice Scalia he wrote for majority opinion about guns and that there should be a full ban on all hand guns would violate the second amendment. Also he wrote how having to keep your gun with locks on it or disassembled is as well unconstitutional. “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.” This is quote from the second amendment of the US Constitution.

The first item in the ruling was about, “ 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.” (DC v. Heller, 2008)

This ruling has affected society today because handguns are often used to protect people in their homes. Here are three examples from recent news stories.Charges filed after victim shot at armed robbers, killing 1, in self-defense near Truman and Oakley."I was scared": Concealed carry permit owner shot man in self defense.Las Vegas police say early information indicates a homeowner was acting in self defense when he fatally shot an intruder.

In my opinion, nowhere does it say you need proper license to have a firearm, but previous rulings said that some regulation is necessary and acceptable. The question was whether the regulation is so strict as to prevent the basic right from being exercised.

I think you should have a license if you are out with your weapon but if it is at your house locked up it is not necessary. Heller was in the right here and whole case against him is unconstitutional.

This case was pretty recent in 2008. Some things this court case really made clear was to prohibit firearms from the felons and the mentally ill. Forbid firearms in sensitive buildings such as schools and government buildings. Impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms. These are all current issues of concern for everyone whether they support guns or not.

Overall I think that this case was a great example of a confusing issue of having the correct licence with the firearm. It shows how even if you are protecting your house, beliefs, or land, you have to have to correct certification for that firearm.

Trigger lock

Former Justice Antonin Scalia

Supreme court

Christensen, Anna. “District of Columbia v. Heller.” SCOTUSblog, www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dc-v-heller/.

“DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, 26 June 2008, www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html.


“FindLaw's United States DC Circuit Case and Opinions.” Findlaw, caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1581885.html.



Rose, Veronica. SUMMARY OF D.C. V. HELLER, 7 Dec. 2008, www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.htm.