- Date:
- June 26, 2008
- Location:
- United States
District of Columbia v. Heller
-
What is District of Columbia v. Heller?
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled (5–4) on June 26, 2008, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms, regardless of militia service, for lawful purposes like self-defense at home.
The case originated in 2003 when six Washington, D.C., residents challenged the district's Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975, which generally banned handgun registration, prohibited carrying unlicensed handguns, and required lawfully stored firearms to be disassembled or locked.
The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s ruling, endorsing the individual-right theory of the Second Amendment, which holds that the amendment protects an individual right derived from English common law. The Court also found that self-defense was a central component of the right to keep and bear arms, thus protecting the right to use arms in defense of hearth and home.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Why was the District of Columbia v. Heller case brought to court?
The District of Columbia v. Heller case was brought to court in 2003 when six residents of the District of Columbia challenged the district's Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975, which generally banned handgun registration, prohibited carrying unlicensed handguns, and required lawfully stored firearms to be disassembled or locked.
The U.S. District Court initially dismissed the suit, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed this decision after determining that only one plaintiff, Dick Heller, had standing to sue. The Court of Appeals struck down the first and third provisions and limited the enforcement of the second, leading the government to file for certiorari, and the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 18, 2008.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What law in Washington, D.C. was challenged in this case?
The case District of Columbia v. Heller challenged provisions of Washington, D.C.’s Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975. These provisions generally banned the registration of handguns, prohibited carrying unlicensed handguns or any "deadly or dangerous" weapon capable of being concealed, and required lawfully stored firearms to be disassembled or locked to prevent firing.
In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms, regardless of militia service, for traditionally lawful purposes like self-defense at home.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What decision did the Supreme Court make in District of Columbia v. Heller?
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms, regardless of militia service, for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense at home. This was the first Second Amendment case the Supreme Court had taken on since United States v. Miller (1939).
The case originated from a suit against the District of Columbia's Firearms Control Regulation Act (1975). The Court affirmed the appellate court’s ruling, endorsing the individual-right theory of the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated that the right to bear arms is an individual right derived from English common law.
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the ruling lacked evidence and misinterpreted previous decisions.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How did the Court interpret the Second Amendment in this decision?
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms, regardless of militia service, for traditionally lawful purposes like self-defense at home. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated that the operative clause of the Second Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," protects an individual right derived from English common law. The Court also found that the framers saw self-defense as the central component of the right to bear arms, thus the Second Amendment protects the right to use arms in defense of hearth and home.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What effect did the District of Columbia v. Heller ruling have on gun laws in the United States?
The District of Columbia v. Heller case significantly impacted gun laws in the United States by affirming the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense at home.
Prior to Heller, the Supreme Court had not seriously considered the scope of the Second Amendment. The ruling struck down provisions of the District of Columbia's Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 that generally banned the registration of handguns, prohibited the carrying of unlicensed handguns, and required lawfully stored firearms to be disassembled or locked.
The Heller decision constrained only federal regulations against the right of armed self-defense in the home. The Supreme Court later addressed whether the Second Amendment guarantees established in Heller were equally applicable to the states in McDonald v. Chicago. The Court held that the right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. It was the first Supreme Court case to explore the meaning of the Second Amendment since United States v. Miller (1939).
District of Columbia v. Heller originated in a suit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., in 2003. In Parker v. District of Columbia, six residents of the federal District of Columbia asked the court to enjoin enforcement of three provisions of the district’s Firearms Control Regulation Act (1975) that generally banned the registration of handguns, prohibited the carrying of unlicensed handguns or any other “deadly or dangerous” weapon capable of being concealed, and required that lawfully stored firearms be disassembled or locked to prevent firing. The district court granted the government’s motion to dismiss. In 2007 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, after determining that only one of the plaintiffs, Dick Heller, had standing to sue (because only he had suffered an actual injury, the denial of his application for a license to possess a handgun), struck down the first and third provisions and limited the enforcement of the second. The government filed for certiorari, and the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 18, 2008.
In a 5–4 ruling issued on June 26, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s ruling. In so doing, it endorsed the so-called “individual-right” theory of the Second Amendment’s meaning and rejected a rival interpretation, the “collective-right” theory, according to which the amendment protects a collective right of states to maintain militias or an individual right to keep and bear arms in connection with service in a militia. Writing for the majority, Antonin Scalia argued that the operative clause of the amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” codifies an individual right derived from English common law and codified in the English Bill of Rights (1689). The majority held that the Second Amendment’s preamble, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is consistent with this interpretation when understood in light of the framers’ belief that the most effective way to destroy a citizens’ militia was to disarm the citizens. The majority also found that United States v. Miller supported an individual-right rather than a collective-right view, contrary to the dominant 20th-century interpretation of that decision. (In Miller, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a federal law requiring the registration of sawed-off shotguns did not violate the Second Amendment because such weapons did not have a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”) Finally, the court held that, because the framers understood the right of self-defense to be “the central component” of the right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment implicitly protects the right “to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”
In his dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens asserted that the court’s decision “fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons.” He criticized the court for attempting to “denigrate” the importance of the preamble by ignoring its disambiguation of the operative clause, and he asserted that it had misinterpreted Miller and neglected the subsequent decisions of “hundreds of judges,” all of whom had taken a collective-right view of the Second Amendment’s meaning. Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent.