Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey

District of Columbia v. Heller

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Federalism Banner-Blue.png
Supreme Court of the United States
District of Columbia v. Heller
Reference: 554 U.S. 570
Term: 2008
Important Dates
Argued: March 18, 2008
Decided: June 26, 2008
Outcome
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed
Majority
Antonin Scalia • John Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito
Dissenting
John Paul Stevens • Stephen Breyer • David Souter • Ruth Bader Ginsburg

District of Columbia v. Heller is a case decided on June 26, 2008, by the United States Supreme Court holding that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to gun ownership. The case concerned the District of Columbia's ban on gun ownership, which was enacted in 1976. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[1][2][3]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Dick Heller, a police officer for the District of Columbia, was denied an application to register a handgun to keep in his home based on a District of Columbia law that banned handguns and prohibited their registration. Heller filed a lawsuit, arguing that the law violated the Second Amendment.
  • The issue: Does the District of Columbia law that restricts the licensing of handguns violate the Second Amendment?
  • The outcome: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and held that the Second Amendment protects individuals' right to gun ownership.


    • Why it matters: The Supreme Court's decision in this case established that the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own a weapon. To read more about the impact of District of Columbia v. Heller click here.

    Background

    A District of Columbia law banned handguns and prohibited their registration. If a firearm was already owned lawfully, it must be kept unloaded and dissembled or controlled by a trigger lock. The only exemptions were if the handguns were at a place of business or being used for recreational activities. Dick Heller, a special police officer for the District of Columbia, was refused an application to register the handgun he wanted to keep in his home. Heller then filed a lawsuit based on the Second Amendment.[4]

    The Washington D.C. trial court ruled in favor of the District of Columbia, stating that the Second Amendment was to protect the guns of those in well-regulated militias. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed with the previous decision, arguing that the Second Amendment does protect the right of private gun ownership.[1]

    Oral argument

    Oral argument was held on March 18, 2008. The case was decided on June 26, 2008.[1]

    Decision

    The Supreme Court decided 5-4 to affirm the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer wrote dissenting opinions, joined by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[2][5]

    Opinions

    Opinion of the court

    Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, argued that an individual could have a firearm outside of service in a militia for lawful, personal use, according to the Second Amendment.[2]

    “ Justice Breyer chides us for leaving so many applications of the right to keep and bear arms in doubt, and for not providing extensive historical justification for those regulations of the right that we describe as permissible. See post, at 42–43. But since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field, any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145 (1879), our first in-depth Free Exercise Clause case, left that area in a state of utter certainty. And there will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us.


    In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.[6]

    		”
    —Antonin Scalia, majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller[2]

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice John Paul Stevens, in a dissenting opinion, argued that the Second Amendment solely protects the right to bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia. Stevens contended that the text of the Second Amendment cannot be construed as a fundamental right to self-defense.[2]

    “ The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.[6] ”
    —John Paul Stevens, dissenting opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller[2]


    Justice Stephen Breyer went further in his argument, writing that if firearm possession were allowed for other reasons, the Second Amendment could not be violated by gun laws that were not "unreasonable or inappropriate."[2]

    “ I shall show that the District’s law is consistent with the Second Amendment even if that Amendment is interpreted as protecting a wholly separate interest in individual self-defense. That is so because the District’s regulation, which focuses upon the presence of handguns in high-crime urban areas, represents a permissible legislative response to a serious, indeed life-threatening, problem.


    Thus I here assume that one objective (but, as the majority concedes, ante, at 26, not the primary objective) of those who wrote the Second Amendment was to help assure citizens that they would have arms available for purposes of self-defense. Even so, a legislature could reasonably conclude that the law will advance goals of great public importance, namely, saving lives, preventing injury, and reducing crime. The law is tailored to the urban crime problem in that it is local in scope and thus affects only a geographic area both limited in size and entirely urban; the law concerns handguns, which are specially linked to urban gun deaths and injuries, and which are the overwhelmingly favorite weapon of armed criminals; and at the same time, the law imposes a burden upon gun owners that seems proportionately no greater than restrictions in existence at the time the Second Amendment was adopted. In these circumstances, the District’s law falls within the zone that the Second Amendment leaves open to regulation by legislatures.[6]

    		”
    —Stephen Breyer, dissenting opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller[2]

    Impact

    Federalism
    Federalism Icon 200x200.png
    •Key terms
    •     Court cases
    •Major arguments
    • State responses to federal mandates
    • Federalism by the numbers
    • Index of articles about federalism

    District of Columbia v. Heller established that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to gun ownership. CBS News claimed this ruling was the first time that the Supreme Court expressly interpreted the Second Amendment since its addition to the United States Constitution.[7] However, the Library of Congress stated that Heller was the first decision to address individual gun ownership rights since 1939.[8]

    Washington, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty said he was disappointed with the decision. He said, "It is important to respect the court's authority and to act quickly," and gave the police department twenty-one days to develop a plan for registering weapons.[9]

    The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence responded that they were disappointed with the interpretation of the Second Amendment, but also optimistic about the continued ability to enforce gun safety laws.[9]

    President George W. Bush praised the decision, saying that he agreed with the interpretation: "As a longstanding advocate of the rights of gun owners in America, I applaud the Supreme Court's historic decision today confirming what has always been clear in the Constitution: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms."[9]

    Though this decision determined a constitutional right to own firearms for personal use, there were several questions left unanswered.[8] After the Supreme Court's decision, lawsuits were filed in various United States cities that also had gun bans.[10]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Oyez, "District of Columbia v. Heller," accessed August 15, 2022
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Justia, "District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)," accessed August 15, 2022
    3. ↑ District of Columbia v. Heller
    4. ↑ Lawnix, District of Columbia v. Heller – Case Brief Summary, accessed December 20, 2013
    5. ↑ District of Columbia v. Heller (dead link)
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ CBSNews.com, "Supreme Court Shoots Down D.C. Gun Ban," June 26, 2008
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Library of Congress, Second Amendment, accessed December 20, 2013
    9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 CNN, "High court strikes down gun ban," accessed December 20, 2013
    10. ↑ Washington Post, "EDITORIAL: Post- and pre-1976 gun ban," accessed December 20, 2013
    v • e
    Federalism
    Overviews
    Terms
    Court cases
    Legislation
    Federal grant survey
    Federalism by the numbers
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=District_of_Columbia_v._Heller&oldid=8950178"