Hoping to reduce violent crime in the city, the Washington D.C. city counsel passed the
Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, which effectively banned individual gun ownership
in the District. The Act generally prohibited D.C. residents from possessing handguns, but
made some exceptions for police officers and security guards. The Act also prohibited residents
from keeping firearms in their homes without licenses, and required that any licensed firearm
kept in the home either be unloaded and disassembled, or fitted with a trigger lock.
Dick Heller, worked as a special police officer in Washington, D.C. As part of his employment,
he was allowed to carry a handgun while at work. Wanting to keep a handgun in his home
after hours, he applied for a license to do so. The District of Columbia denied Heller’s
application.
Heller sued the District of Columbia for violating his Second Amendment rights.
Based on its reading, the district court found that the Second Amendment does not create
an individual right to gun ownership unrelated to service in an organized militia, such as
the National Guard, and dismissed Heller’s complaint. The court of appeals found that
the Second Amendment does create an individual right to gun ownership and reversed the lower
court’s decision. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The issue on appeal was whether the D.C. law prohibiting the possession of handguns in
the District or usable firearms in the home violated the Second Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
In a narrow 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the District of Columbia’s law
restricting Heller’s ability to possess a firearm and altogether prohibiting Heller
from keeping a handgun in his home violated his Second Amendment rights.
Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said that the Second Amendment protected Heller’s
right to possess a firearm, even if such possession was unconnected with service in a militia.
Scalia engaged in a deep textual analysis and concluded that the Second Amendment’s
reference to the need for a “well ordered militia” was only an introductory clause
indicating the amendment’s purpose, but that it did not limit the right to bear arms
guaranteed in the amendment’s operative clause. Further, Scalia concluded that there
was nothing in the legislative history of the Constitution, nor state constitutions enacted
around the same time, nor writings by contemporary scholars, nor even the antecedent English history
showing that the Founding Fathers intended to limit gun ownership solely for militia
purposes.
The majority did allow that states must be free to regulate who can own firearms in order
address certain safety concerns. For example, a state may restrict convicted felons and
the mentally ill from gun ownership. However, because Heller did not fall into one of these
narrow categories of gun owners who may threaten public safety, the Court found the District
of Columbia’s prohibition on gun ownership to be overly broad and deemed it unconstitutional.
Justice Stevens dissented, relying on the Court’s decision in United States v. Miller. In that case,
the Court held that it was unlawful for two men to possess a sawed-off shotgun, because
their reasons for doing so bore no relationship to the purpose of preserving a well-regulated
militia. Stevens alleged that neither the text of the Amendment nor the debates surrounding
its passage indicated an interest in limiting the legislature’s ability to regulate the
private, civilian uses of firearms. Rather, Stevens explained that the individual right
to keep and bear arms was designed to be solely for the purpose of preserving a well-regulated
militia. Because Heller sought to own a handgun for self-defense, and not as a member of a
militia, Stevens contended that the District of Columbia may restrict such ownership without
infringing on Heller’s Second Amendment rights.
In his dissent, Justice Breyer asserted that the District of Columbia’s law did not violate
Heller’s Second Amendment rights, because the Second Amendment’s protection of the
right to bear arms is not absolute, and is subject to reasonable restrictions. Breyer
explained that the Court must balance the burden a law may place on an individual’s
right to bear arms with the importance of a state’s interest in doing so. Breyer concluded
that the District of Columbia’s law did not unreasonably interfere with Heller’s
right of self-defense, because its purpose was to combat the presence of handguns in
high-crime urban areas, and that interest was important enough to justify the restrictions.
District of Columbia v. Heller was the first Supreme Court case to explore the meaning
of the Second Amendment since United States v. Miller in 1939. Heller set the stage for
the 2010 case of McDonald v. Chicago, in which the Supreme Court expressly held that the Second Amendment
was incorporated against the states.
If you found this video helpful, you can explore all of our content by visiting us at Quimbee.com.
If you have a question or comment about this case, please post in the comments area below,
and we’ll do our best to get back to you. If you think we did a good job with this video,
please like, share, and favorite this video. And if you think this video might be helpful
to people you know, please share on social media, Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ to get
this video out there.
If you haven’t done so already and you enjoy watching videos on this channel, click on
the red subscribe button just below this video, so you can get all the latest updates.