District of Columbia v. Heller

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The case was decided in a 2–1 decision. The Supreme Court ruled that handguns are ‘arms’ for the purposes of the 2nd Amendment, and that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban.

About District of Columbia v. Heller in brief

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias. In February 2003, the six residents of District of Columbia filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975. In June 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of 5 to 4 the Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit in Heller v. District ofColumbia. The court concluded that of the six plaintiffs, only one had standing to sue for a handgun permit but was denied standing – who applied for a license to carry a gun. The decision did not address the question of whether the right to bear arms is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. This point was addressed two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The ruling also noted that the right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and that it was ‘premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defence’ The court also held that the Right to Bear Arms also helped preserve the activities of a citizen, even though they are depredations of a tyrannical government. It also stated that theRight to Bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated.

The case was decided in a 2–1 decision. The Supreme Court ruled that handguns are ‘arms’ for the purposes of the 2nd Amendment, and that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept ‘unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock’ The decision was appealed to the U. S. Court of Appeal for the DC Circuit, which reversed the dismissal of the lawsuit in March 2004. The lawsuit was dismissed on appeal on March 31, 2004, but the decision was later overturned on June 26, 2008, by a 2-1 decision by the US Court of appeals for the C.A.C. Circuit. In the decision, the court ruled that the 6 plaintiffs did not have standing for their claim to a permit to own a handgun but had standing for standing in section II of the Constitution. The 6 plaintiffs were: three men and three women, four white and two black, and a man and a woman in their mid-20s to early 60s. The law restricted residents from owning handguns, excluding those grandfathered in by registration prior to 1975 and those possessed by active and retired law enforcement officers. They filed for an injunction pursuant to 28 U.S., C.C.,  § 2201, 2202, and 42 S. C, § 1983. The law also required that all guns be kept ‘unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.

Related posts:

Marielle Heller District of Columbia voting rights Bear Beef Bones Regulations 1997