District of Columbia V Heller 2008

Title and Year

District of Columbia V Heller

2008

 Court

 Roberts Majority Opinion

Antonin Scalia

Facts/Brief Background

District of Columbia passed the Firearms Regulation Act of 1975 which restricted the citizens from owning any kind of handguns. But the act allowed anyone who bought the gun before 1975 to own it but they have to disassemble and the bullets must be removed and trigger must be locked. D.C. argued that 2nd amendment is applicable only to the militia and other government organizations which are involved in public safety and protections and 2nd amendment is not applicable to individual citizens. A group of gun owners brought this suit to the court claiming that the provisions of Firearms Regulation Act were unconstitutional because it violated the 2nd amendment rights. The district court upheld the law and the Circuit court ruled that the law was unconstitutional. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. Issue

Whether provisions of the D.C. Code generally barring the registration of handguns, prohibiting carrying a pistol without a license, and requiring all lawful firearms to be kept unloaded and either disassembled or trigger locked violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

Ruling & Legal Doctrine

The court ruled in favor of Heller. Justice Scalia in his majority opinion stated that it is right of each and every individual to carry firearms and is guaranteed by the second amendment of the constitution. But the court didn’t say that the right to carry firearms is unlimited. They said that the D.C law which required the bullets to be unloaded, trigger locking devices to be installed and the guns need to disassembled is unconstitutional because it prevents the individual from bearing firearms inside their houses for safety and self defense and the licensing requirements also put more restrictions on the possession of firearms. The court restricted the ruing only to the possession of hand guns and refused to hear about other forms of guns.

Significance

The aftermath of this decision is rather interesting. After the release of the judgment, many new cases of 2nd amendment started to pile up in the district courts. The decision got a mixed response from the public. This decision almost overturned the decision of US V Miller.