How did the Supreme Court rule in District of Columbia v. Heller?

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, independent of service in a militia.1

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia affirmed the "individual-right" theory of the amendment, rejecting the "collective-right" interpretation that would limit gun ownership to militia service. The Court held that the amendment's operative clause—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—codifies a right rooted in English common law. Furthermore, the majority determined that self-defense is the "central component" of this right.1

The decision affirmed an appellate court ruling that had struck down restrictive provisions of the District of Columbia’s Firearms Control Regulation Act, which had effectively banned handgun registration and required stored firearms to be kept inoperable. Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer filed dissenting opinions, arguing that the Court misinterpreted the amendment's history and ignored decades of legal precedent.1