District of Columbia v. Heller: The Use and Permit of Handguns

Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm to use for lawful purposes, such as defending oneself within their home/property. The court case ruled that the Amendment was not connected to service in a militia (Constitution). Handgun possession is banned under District of Columbia law. This law prohibits the registration of handguns and makes it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm; additionally, all lawfully owned firearms must be kept unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock unless they are being used for lawful recreational activities or located in a place of business.

A hot-button topic in the world of U.S. politics today is the controversy over whether or not new gun laws need to be instituted to keep Americans safe. We are a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and one that sticks to traditional values. With this, comes a great deal of incongruity, which makes for a very sensitive debate on gun control. On one side of the spectrum, we have those who take a more liberal stance; while they do in fact support the second amendment, there is no doubt that the U.S. has evolved significantly since the Constitution was written, hence creating a need for strict gun laws. On the other side of the spectrum, conservatives argue that as soon as executive action inhibits the fundamental principles in which

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution 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." Gun ownership is an American tradition older than the country itself and is protected by the Second Amendment; more gun control laws would infringe upon the right to bear arms. Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, in the June 26, 2008 District of Columbia et al. v. Heller US Supreme Court majority opinion syllabus stated, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." The McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) ruling also stated that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights."

America needs to institute, and initiate gun control laws throughout the entire nation. But not everybody who inhabits the United States believes in regulating arms. Those who are against establishing gun laws argue that gun control directly infringes upon their “right to bear arms” granted to them by the 2nd Amendment. Anti gun control supporters, such as the National Rifle Association, often claim that the act of regulating guns is a sufficient reason why such an Amendment was introduced in the constitution; to protect themselves from any and all forms of violation of civil liberties and freedom. Supporters of anti gun laws are unwilling to welcome any interpretations of the 2nd Amendment that do not match up “word for word,” as was written in the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment is making headlines these days. The Second Amendment states, 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. This Amendment was ratified in December of 1791. This amendment was proposed by James Madison, after the constitution was ratified. “James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias…” (Brooks, The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms) The latest court case on the Second Amendment is the Peruta v. California “case”. But that was turned down the case. The Second Amendment is important because it provides self defense, enables U.S. citizens to hunt for food, and it allows for citizens of states in the U.S. to form militias.

In this case, Dick Heller, a police officer, authorized to carry a handgun while on duty wanted a handgun to own and keep at his home. The District of Columbia refused so Dick Heller filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia, which eventually also went to the Supreme Court. In June 2008, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, determined the provisions of the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 as unconstitutional. They stated that “handguns or arms for the purpose of self-defense do not have to be trigger locked”.

​In his book ‘Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America,’ Wrinkler tried to present an unbiased view towards the second amendment in the light of historical events and landmark cases that has tried to challenge or obtain the court’s interpretation. One of such cases is the ‘District of Columbia v. Heller’ case, which was argued and decided in 2008 (Supreme Court of the United States). For several instances, the provision in the Second Amendment that pertains to the right of an individual to bear arms has been contested. In fact, the clause, which states that “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”, is perhaps the most misconstrued clause in the American constitution (Supreme Court of the United States). Adding to the significance of this highly debatable clause is the fact that a flurry of gun related incidences has happened in the United States in the past that has taken many lives including that of children. Among the most significant authors that has attempted to answer the question or at least laid out the possibilities regarding the second amendment is Adam Wrinkler. In light of Winkler’s arguments as well as with other sources, this paper will examine the historical

Heller applied for a one year licenses so that he could keep a handgun at home for self defence purposes, but he was denied. Heller then went on to sue D.C. for violating his second amendment right. The case was taken to D.C.’s district court. Hellers case

The second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of people to bear arms and was adopted in 1791. It guarantees all Americans "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is more described as supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Former Chief Justice of the United States, Warren E. Burger writes an essay regarding “The Right To Bear Arms,” that originally appeared in the Parade Magazine in the 1990’s that questions if “The Right To Bear Arms,” is an outdated idea. Burger argument is that the gun control would lower if handguns were lowered. He also talks about the”Militias,” which is an army that protects the security of the state. Our “State Militias,” in our time, serves as a huge national defense.

Heller, the court ruled that “the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing individual right to keep and bear arms…including, ‘the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation’” (National Rifle Association, 2011 par 4). Although the Constitution gives individuals the right to bear arms, it does not exclude “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places…or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms,” (Romano & Wingert, 2011 par 13). In recent years here has been much discussion among the nation’s lawmakers and their constituents as to whether or not the Second Amendment is still constitutional; the question is whether or not the Second Amendment should be revised, to prohibit the sale of firearms to those who do not meet certain conditions and qualifications, or even removed from the constitution. According to a national survey of 1,005 high school students, conducted by Vittes, Sorrenson and Gilbert, “63.7 percent of high school students believe that regulating the sale of guns does not violate the constitution” (2003, pg 12). In the same survey, 64.6 percent responded that they would support stricter laws addressing the sale of firearms, and 82.2 percent of those surveyed, believe that the government should make and enforce laws making it more difficult for

The Second Amendment states that “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 way the Supreme Court interprets this amendment changes constantly because not even the Supreme Court fully understands the limits and rights given to citizens. Some argue that this amendment protects our right to own a gun, but is not very clear. Over the years the second amendment has become a huge debate over gun rights and gun control. This is a cause of all the gun violence this country has been facing for many years and they need a way to help prevent gun violence or even suppress the amount of deaths faced by these tragedies. One of the ways this

The Second Amendment says people have the right to carry concealed handguns. Judge Richard Posner said “must be interpreted to include a right to have a concealed gun in public, to have it ready for use, and have it for self defense”. The Second Amendment also says “a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The Supreme Court has made a landmark that states ruling upholding the right of people

As we look at our history we can see that every amendment to the constitution has been challenged in court at one time or another. As long as man or woman has free will and different interpretations of things legal battles will continue. I chose the district of Columbia v Heller I chose this because the Second Amendment is one that I follow closely. The District of Columbia and the Washington DC metropolitan police department with the government entities involved in the case. The petitioner was the district of Columbia and the respondent was Dick Anthony Heller. The District of Columbia and acted a law that made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm and also prohibited the registration of handguns virtually making it impossible for anyone

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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 constitution is clearly saying all citizens have the right to be able to own and carry a weapon or firearm. On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves (Cornell 1). This is showing how our founding fathers supported the right to bear arms.

Gun control infringes on the Second Amendment right of the American people.  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" (Adams).  In researching gun control, the government is not sure which way to enforce the law because they can not determine the fair interpretation of the amendment.  Even though gun control is suppose to reduce fire arm related crimes, it only makes it harder for law abiding citizens, or officers of the law to attain guns.  According to Hogberg there was a specific case of Heller vs. Washington D.C. that made a huge impact.  Dick Heller was asked to defend the people of D.C. against the government to gain the rights to own a hand gun.  The right of owning a hand gun in Washington D.C. was revoked in the early 1970's, but in 1976 an incident of a shooting changed