D.C. v. Heller - Landmark Cases - Episode # 7 - YouTube

I hope this finds you well. Self-defense is a basic right. The Second Amendment of the

United States Constitution protects a citizens right to bear arms.

In 2008 the Supreme Court ruled on a case called District of Columbia v. Heller.

The U.S. Supreme Court had

not considered a direct Second Amendment challenge since 1939 in a case called U.S. v. Miller. That case involved

an unregistered double barrel 12-gauge shotgun. The barrel was less than 18 inches in length.

The Supreme Court held that that type of shotgun was not part of any ordinary military equipment

or that it contributed to the common defense.

Lets jump into the case.

Heller was decided on June 26, 2008, by a vote of 5-4. The opinion was authored by the

late Justice Scalia. He was joined in the majority by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice

Kennedy, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito. The Dissenters were Justice Stevens, Justice

Souter, Justice Ginsberg, and Justice Breyer.

The question the court had to answer was Whether the D.C. statutes that limited the licensing

of handguns and required licensed handguns in the home to be disabled violated the Second

Amendment?

So heres what happened. The case began in 2002 with six plaintiffs; Shelly Parker,

Tom Palmer, Gillian St. Lawrence, Tracey Ambeau, George Lyon, and

Dick Heller. We will only discuss Dick Heller. Heller was a special police officer in Washington

D.C. He was authorized to carry a weapon while on duty but did not have one at home. So he

decided to get one for his home.

The D.C. gun laws at issue prohibited the possession of handguns and made it a crime

to carry an unregistered firearm. The registration of handguns was also prohibited. On top of

that no person was allowed to carry a handgun without a license, however, the chief of police

could issue licenses for 1-year increments. The law also required residents to keep their

lawfully owned weapons unloaded and disassembled or under trigger lock unless they were located

in a place of business or being used for recreational activities.

Heller, by his own account, lived in a neighborhood that had fallen into decline. Heller applied

for a license to possess a handgun at home for self-defense but was refused.

This refusal started the journey to the halls of the U.S. Supreme Court. Heller filed suit

in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to enjoin the city from

enforcing the registration limitation on handguns, the licensing requirement, and the trigger-lock

requirement.

The District Court dismissed Heller's complaint. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit, reversed the district court, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individuals

right to possess firearms and that the D.C.’s ban on handguns, and the home nonfunctional

requirement violated the second amendment right to bear arms for self-defense.

The second amendment 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 case really centered on the interpretation of the second amendment. The opinion was authored

by Justice Scalia an originalist. This opinion is arguably one of his most influential opinions.

The court broke the amendment into two pieces. The prefatory clause and the operative clause.

With respect to the prefatory clause, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the

security of a free State,” Militia, should not be confined to those serving in the military,

because at the time the term referred to all capable men who could be called to service.

Furthermore, the prefatory clause doesn't limit the operative clause; the right of the

people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Justice Scalia looked at how the words were used elsewhere in the Constitution and at

the time of adoption, the historical background of the Amendment, and similar provisions in

state constitutions near the time of adoption. The court also examined pre and post-civil

war commentaries.

The court ruled, the second Amendment extends a right to all individuals to keep firearms.

The second amendment is not absolute, but a complete ban on a class of weapons, here

handguns, even for a lawful purpose, violates the second amendment of the constitution.

Furthermore, the right to bear arms is in step with the natural right to defend ones

self. The D.C. laws were in violation of the second Amendment.

Justice STEVENS, wrote a dissent joined by Justice SOUTER, Justice GINSBURG, and Justice

BREYER.

Stevens argued that the second amendment does not create an unlimited right to possess guns

for self-defense purposes.

The Second Amendment was adopted to maintain a well-regulated militia, and the majority

based its judgement on a strained and unpersuasive reading of the text

He also looked at texts and commentaries from the time of adoption of the second amendment.

And remember the Miller case I previously mentioned? Stevens stated that Miller represents

stare decisis and should not be departed from in this case.

Justice Breyer also wrote a dissent joined by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg.

Breyer proposed a balancing test approach. And offered that the court should consider

studies and statistics to apply the test, with deference to the legislature, and uphold

their restrictions.

Thanks for watching! In honor of Justice Scalia I leave you with a few of his quotes I find

particularly impactful whether for humor or shear brilliance.