District of Columbia v. Heller Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

judgment

the justices decided heller

according syllabus prepared u.s. supreme court reporter of decisions, in district of columbia v. heller, 554 u.s. 570 (2008), supreme court held:

1. second amendment protects individual right possess firearm unconnected service in militia, , use arm traditionally lawful purposes, such self-defense within home. pp. 2–53.

(a) amendment’s prefatory clause announces purpose, not limit or expand scope of second part, operative clause. operative clause’s text , history demonstrate connotes individual right keep , bear arms. pp. 2–22.
(b) prefatory clause comports court’s interpretation of operative clause. militia comprised males physically capable of acting in concert common defense. antifederalists feared federal government disarm people in order disable citizens’ militia, enabling politicized standing army or select militia rule. response deny congress power abridge ancient right of individuals keep , bear arms, ideal of citizens’ militia preserved. pp. 22–28.
(c) court’s interpretation confirmed analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions preceded , followed second amendment. pp. 28–30.
(d) second amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals 3 state second amendment proposals unequivocally referred individual right bear arms. pp. 30–32.
(e) interpretation of second amendment scholars, courts , legislators, after ratification through late 19th century supports court’s conclusion. pp. 32–47.
(f) none of court’s precedents forecloses court’s interpretation. neither united states v. cruikshank, 92 u.s. 542, nor presser v. illinois, 116 u.s. 252, refutes individual-rights interpretation. united states v. miller, 307 u.s. 174, not limit right keep , bear arms militia purposes, rather limits type of weapon right applies used militia, i.e., in common use lawful purposes. pp. 47–54.


2. rights, second amendment right not unlimited. not right keep , carry weapon whatsoever in manner whatsoever , whatever purpose: example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under amendment or state analogues. court’s opinion should not taken cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on possession of firearms felons , mentally ill, or laws forbidding carrying of firearms in sensitive places such schools , government buildings, or laws imposing conditions , qualifications on commercial sale of arms. miller s holding sorts of weapons protected in common use @ time finds support in historical tradition of prohibiting carrying of dangerous , unusual weapons. pp. 54–56.
3. handgun ban , trigger-lock requirement (as applied self-defense) violate second amendment. district’s total ban on handgun possession in home amounts prohibition on entire class of arms americans overwhelmingly choose lawful purpose of self-defense. under of standards of scrutiny court has applied enumerated constitutional rights, prohibition – in place importance of lawful defense of self, family, , property acute – fail constitutional muster. similarly, requirement lawful firearm in home disassembled or bound trigger lock makes impossible citizens use arms core lawful purpose of self-defense , hence unconstitutional. because heller conceded @ oral argument d. c. licensing law permissible if not enforced arbitrarily , capriciously, court assumes license satisfy prayer relief , not address licensing requirement. assuming not disqualified exercising second amendment rights, district must permit heller register handgun , must issue him license carry in home. pp. 56–64.

there similar legal summaries of supreme court s findings in heller. example, illinois supreme court in people v. aguilar (2013), summed heller s findings , reasoning:

in district of columbia v. heller, 554 u.s. 570 (2008), supreme court undertook first-ever in-depth examination of second amendment’s meaning id. @ 635. after lengthy historical discussion, court concluded second amendment guarantee[s] individual right possess , carry weapons in case of confrontation (id. @ 592); central right inherent right of self-defense (id. @ 628); home need defense of self, family, , property acute (id. @ 628); , that, above other interests, second amendment elevates right of law-abiding, responsible citizens use arms in defense of hearth , home (id. @ 635). based on understanding, court held district of columbia law banning handgun possession in home violated second amendment. id. @ 635.

notes , analysis

heller has been described landmark decision. clarify ruling not invalidate broad range of existing firearm laws, majority opinion, written justice antonin scalia, said:

like rights, right secured second amendment not unlimited ... although not undertake exhaustive historical analysis today of full scope of second amendment, nothing in our opinion should taken cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on possession of firearms felons , mentally ill, or laws forbidding carrying of firearms in sensitive places such schools , government buildings, or laws imposing conditions , qualifications on commercial sale of arms.

the court s statement right limited has been discussed lower courts , media. majority opinion said amendment s prefatory clause (referencing militia ) serves clarify operative clause (referencing people ), not limit scope of operative clause, because militia in colonial america consisted of subset of people ....

justice stevens dissenting opinion, joined 3 other dissenters, said:

the question presented case not whether second amendment protects collective right or individual right. surely protects right can enforced individuals. conclusion second amendment protects individual right not tell scope of right.

stevens went on following:

the second amendment adopted protect right of people of each of several states maintain well-regulated militia. response concerns raised during ratification of constitution power of congress disarm state militias , create national standing army posed intolerable threat sovereignty of several states. neither text of amendment nor arguments advanced proponents evidenced slightest interest in limiting legislature’s authority regulate private civilian uses of firearms. specifically, there no indication framers of amendment intended enshrine common-law right of self-defense in constitution.

this dissent called majority opinion strained , unpersuasive , said right possess firearm exists in relation militia , d.c. laws constitute permissible regulation. in majority opinion, justice stevens interpretation of phrase keep , bear arms referred hybrid definition stevens purportedly chose in order avoid incoherent , [g]rotesque idiomatic meeting.

justice breyer, in own dissent joined stevens, souter, , ginsburg, stated entire court subscribes proposition amendment protects individual right – i.e., 1 separately possessed, , may separately enforced, each person on whom conferred .

regarding term regulated , majority opinion said, adjective well-regulated implies nothing more imposition of proper discipline , training. majority opinion quoted spooner unconstitutionality of slavery saying right bear arms necessary wanted take stand against slavery. majority opinion stated that:

a purposive qualifying phrase contradicts word or phrase modifies unknown side of looking glass (except, apparently, in courses on linguistics). if bear arms means, think, carrying of arms, modifier can limit purpose of carriage ( purpose of self-defense or make war against king ). if bear arms means, petitioners , dissent think, carrying of arms military purposes, 1 cannot add purpose of killing game. right carry arms in militia purpose of killing game worthy of mad hatter.

the dissenting justices not persuaded argument.

reaction heller has varied, many sources giving focus ruling referring being first in supreme court history read second amendment protecting individual right. majority opinion, authored justice scalia, gives explanation of majority legal reasoning behind decision. majority opinion made clear recent ruling did not foreclose court’s prior interpretations given in united states v. cruikshank, presser v. illinois, , united states v. miller though these earlier rulings did not limit right keep , bear arms solely militia purposes, rather limits type of weapon right applies used militia (i.e., in common use lawful purposes).

heller pertained 3 district of columbia ordinances involving restrictions on firearms amounting total ban. these 3 ordinances ban on handgun registration, requirement firearms in home either disassembled or have trigger lock, , licensing requirement prohibits carrying unlicensed firearm in home, such 1 room another.

under of standards of scrutiny court has applied enumerated constitutional rights, prohibition – in place importance of lawful defense of self, family, , property acute – fail constitutional muster.... because heller conceded @ oral argument district s licensing law permissible if not enforced arbitrarily , capriciously, court assumed license satisfy prayer relief , did not address licensing requirement. assuming not disqualified exercising second amendment rights, district must permit heller register handgun , must issue him license carry in home.

justice ginsburg has been vocal critic of heller. speaking in interview on public radio station wnyc, called second amendment outdated, saying:

when no longer need people keep muskets in home, second amendment has no function ... if court had interpreted second amendment, court have said amendment important when nation new; gave qualified right keep , bear arms, 1 purpose – , purpose of having militiamen able fight preserve nation.