Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Cases. History Coursework

District of Columbia v. Heller
Name
Institution
Due Date
District of Columbia v. Heller
Summary
The District v. Heller happened in 2008. For more than three decades, the Council of D.C. had successfully installed one of the most strict gun laws in the U.S. As the country saw an increase in gun-related deaths, the Council decided to pass the Firearms Control Regulation Act. According to Teitelbaum and Spectator (2009), this law “specifically banned ownership of handguns, including sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, short-barreled rifles, and pistols, and required that lawful firearms (e.g., shotguns and rifles) be registered with the city.” Well, for three decades, residents of D.C. had lived under these laws until 2006 when six residents decide to challenge the Council’s decision for coming up with such laws. Of the six, only Dick Anthony Heller’s case reached the Supreme Court.
First, the six residents took their case to the federal court which ruled in favor of D.C. Unsatisfied, the six decided to appeal. While at the appellate court, five of the six residents were dismissed mainly because of “technical reasons” (Teitelbaum and Spectator, 2009). However, Heller’s case was different and hence the ruling to protect and uphold his right to own a firearm. Unsatisfied, D.C. decided to appeal to the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court held that “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.” Justice Scalia made it clear that self-defense, though not obviously mentioned, is a key component of the Second Amendment. However, Justices Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Souter dissented noting that the rights to bear arms are only protected by the Second Amendment only when military service is concerned.
Explain how the Bill of Rights addressed the facts of the case
The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights reads “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.” The words above have been at the center of many debates as people have tried for centuries to develop universal interpretations. However, thus far, even the Supreme Court has failed to provide clear guidance on how the words above ought to be read and interpreted.
The greatest question regarding D.C. v. Heller was where self-defense comes in. An approach that appears to have a lot of weight behind it is that the Second Amendment is directl...