RIGHT TO OWN A FIREARM
CIVIL RIGHTS AND
LIBERITIES
District of Columbia Vs. Heller
District of Columbia v.
Heller (2008)
Supreme Court case
on the Second
Amendment's
protection of an
individual's right to
own a firearm
The Second
Amendment grants
the citizens the right
to bear arms
Key facts of the case
The District if Columbia is considered a
state in the US
It passed a law in 1975 to control
ownership of guns
The restricted ownership of guns
automatic, semi-automatic firearms and
handguns
Possession was also outlawed
Licenses could be granted to current
and former law enforcement officers
Key facts of the case
Residents of the District of Columbia
filed a case at the district court
The case was dismissed in 2004
The case then proceeded to the
Supreme Court
The court of Appeals started by
reversing the dismissal of the District
Court
Questions at the Appeals Court
The court sought to
answer the question of
standing
Standing is where
direct connection is
established by the
suing part
Six people were
involved in the case
Only Dick Heller had
standing hence the
name of the case
Questions at the Court of Appeals
The second question
was on the definition
of Arms
The second
amendment
guarantees the right
to own arms
The state law barred
citizens from owning
automatic, semi-
automatic and
handguns
The Supreme Court
The District of Columbia petitioned
the Court of Appeals to hear the case
on a full bench
The Court of Appeals declined to
grant the petition
It is then that the case proceeded to
the Supreme Court
The petitioners wanted the court to
offer a judicial review
Legal Question at the Supreme Court
The statutes by the District of
Columbia were the center of the
controversy
The court sought to answer whether
the stated statutes violate the
second amendment
Holding of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court found that the provisions
of the second of the second amendment
allow ownership and possession of firearms
One does not have to be affiliated to state
regulated militia to enjoy this right
The handgun ban and the trigger lock
requirements violate the second amendment
The court also held that the rights are not
unlimited and thus individuals should act
within the law
Verdict
The court held that the right to
ownership of arms is natural
The dissenting judges argued that
the second amendment is silent on
purpose of arms
Individuals could use the same
differently
The right to ownership of arms was
upheld by the court
Conclusion
The decision allows citizens of the US
to keep and bear arms
It is in line with the second
amendment
The right is not unlimited as
observed by the court
Several factors such as age and
criminal record are considered
References
Adams, T. B. (2020). Should Justices Be
Historians? Justice Scalia's Opinion in
District of Columbia v. Heller. USFL
Rev., 55, 301.
Henderson, R. (2021). The Right to Bear
Arms. Alaska Criminal Law-2022 Edition.
Smith, C. R. (2022). Originalism and the
Second Amendment: A
reassessment. Communication and
Democracy, 56(1), 49-70.
