Dick Heller was a policeman
who helped to guard the federal buildings
and carried a gun in order to do that.
But when he wanted to have a gun at home
to protect himself in his home,
he wasn't allowed to do it because of
Washington, DC's very, very strict, uh, law.
Heller and several other petitioners
got together and were organized by Robert Levy
to bring a case to actually test
what the core meaning of the Second Amendment was,
and whether there was an individual right to be armed,
or not.
District of Columbia versus Heller case
was the first time that the US Supreme Court actually
analyzed the core meaning of the Second Amendment
to decide whether there was an individual right
for people to have arms to protect themselves,
and for other lawful purposes,
or there was only a collective right
for members of a well regulated militia.
It was extremely controversial, a lot was riding on it.
So there was a great deal of concern,
there were dozens of briefs that got submitted.
The District of Columbia's main arguments were
that there was no individual right to be armed.
This was just a collective right
for members of a military unit like the militia.
And secondly, because the amendment said
in its preamble, "a well regulated militia
being necessary to the security of a free state,"
that could not apply to Washington
because Washington was not a state.
Heller argued that there was an individual right,
mainly for self defense.
That was what the Second Amendment meant,
it was a pre-existing right from English history,
and therefore, this Washington statute,
which deprived residents of being able
even to have a gun in their own homes,
and if they had something had to be locked up,
it was useless for self defense
that deprive them of their Second Amendment right.
It was a five-to-four decision.
The majority opinion by Scalia
went into all kinds of the history
of the right to be armed from British history
to early America and the statutes.
He even looked at dictionaries from the time period
to see how they translated "bear arms."
It was unusual, I think,
especially in such an important case,
but I think it was because
they had never really analyzed the
meaning of the Second Amendment,
that they had to go back to the very beginning
and take a look at what was meant.
On the other side, you had two or three dissents.
But all of them were looking at the background.
So it was unusual in that, and in fact
there was some article afterwards,
referring to them as the history boys.
Stevens, who wrote the major dissent,
looked into the drafting history,
and his view was that virtually every word,
in the main clause, "the right of the people
to keep in bear arms shall not be infringed,"
he interpreted to have solely a military meaning.
Therefore, "the right of the people"
only referred to the right of people who were in the militia.
Breyer was the one who admitted that
it didn't matter how good or bad this law was,
it shouldn't be up to the Court,
it should be up to the legislature to decide that.
The impact has been very mixed
because lower courts and appeals courts
continue to operate as if Heller did not exist.
And because the Supreme Court has been reluctant
for 10 years to take up any of those cases,
the appellate decisions have stood,
and so they have eroded the meaning of
and importance of Heller.
And Justice Thomas has called it a "constitutional orphan,"
and so far, that's what it is.