Judgment Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

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.