# data[].attributes.body
Chief Justice:
John Roberts
Associate Justices:
John P. Stevens
Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy
David Souter
Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito

# data[].attributes.body
The District of Columbia made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm but the chief of police could give out a one year license. Dick Anthony Heller was a police officer and he had to have his gun while he was working, so he applied for a license and got denied. So he filed a compliant and the District of Columbia court dismissed it and it was then reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals. They said that this went against the 2nd Amendment right to keep a firearm in your home for the purpose of self defense.

# data[].attributes.body
United States Court of Appeals for the District for Columbia Circuit.
Decision: The District of Columbia court dismissed the claim.

# data[].attributes.body
Dellinger said, " he exactly equated the phrase "bearing arms" with, quote, "rendering military service"

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country, but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. "

"Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be-- "

Respondent: "The Petitioners have had two opportunities to urge courts to adopt this so-called self-defense exception which they construed in the amendment. "

"Certainly the idea that people can guess as to when it is that they might render the firearm operational is... is not a one that the Court should accept, because a person who hears a noise, a person who perhaps is living in a neighborhood where there has been a spate of violent crimes, has no idea of when the District of Columbia would permit her to render the firearm operational."

# data[].attributes.body
Concurring Opinion: Heller won the case 5 to 4. Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito voted that it was unconstitutional. Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer voted against Heller.  They said it violated the Second Amendment and since Heller was qualified to carry a gun this violated his right.
Dissenting Opinions: Breyer said that it didn't go against the 2nd Amendment because that was for militia and Heller didn't qualify for that and it doesn't fit with the Operative Clause. Justice Stevens also went against the ruling and said that the 2nd Amendment protects "individual rights" so it doesn't apply to this case.

# data[].attributes.body
This Supreme Court Case is Judicial Activism because it was voted that the District of Columbia was taking away their citizens' 2nd Amendment right to bare arms so that is why Heller sued.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Primary Holding

Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

Facts

In a rather artificially generated lawsuit, Robert Levy at the Cato Institute selected six plaintiffs for a claim that would test the individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. The group included a range of age groups, an even balance in genders, and two African-Americans. The named plaintiff, Dick Heller, was a licensed special police officer for the District of Columbia who was not allowed to have a gun at home despite being able to use it at work. Like the other plaintiffs, he lived in an area with high drug use and crime activity. The critical difference between Heller and the other plaintiffs was that he had applied for a handgun permit and been refused. This meant that he had standing to sue, whereas the others did not. They dropped out of the case in the early stages.

The District of Columbia had enacted the Firearms Control Regulations Act in 1975, which prohibited individual ownership of handguns in most cases except those possessed by current or former law enforcement officers. The six plaintiffs sought an injunction against the enforcement of this provision, as well as another provision of the law that required any guns to be kept unloaded and disassembled. While their case was dismissed by the federal district court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, finding that Heller had standing. The court defined handguns as arms within the meaning of the Second Amendment and held that the Amendment extends to rights beyond participating in the militia. Keeping guns unloaded and disassembled also was impermissible because it hindered individuals in exercising the right of self-defense.

Attorneys

Walter E. Dellinger (defendant)

Thomas Goldstein (defendant)

Robert Long (defendant)

Todd Kim (defendant)

Alan Gura (plaintiff)

Robert Levy (plaintiff)

Clark Neily (plaintiff)

Opinions
Majority

Antonin Scalia (Author)

John G. Roberts, Jr.

Anthony M. Kennedy

Clarence Thomas

Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

Emphatically ruling that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to possess arms and use them for self-defense inside the home, Scalia found that it extended well beyond the traditional meaning of militias. He analyzed the structure of the document, especially the prefatory clause, as well as its history. Scalia pointed out that state constitutions crafted similar provisions near the same time as the Second Amendment, and the Amendment's drafting history includes several proposals from the states that would have expressly protected the individual right to bear arms. He took readers on a lengthy tour of interpretations of the Second Amendment through the following centuries, finding that both the legal academy and legislators agreed with his perspective.

Scalia acknowledged that there might be some limitations on the type of weapon that could fit within this right, referring to U.S. v. Miller as a proper restriction to weapons that are in common use for lawful purposes. (Only these types of weapons could have been used by the militia.) States also can prevent convicted criminals from carrying weapons, limit their use in school zones or government buildings, and forbid the carrying of concealed weapons. Thus, his opinion was not an unqualified endorsement of the right to bear arms for any reason in any manner at any location. Dangerous and unusual weapons are not constitutionally protected.

Scalia declined to identify the standard of review that he applied, or guide courts on what standard to apply for future Second Amendment decisions. This was in part because he felt that the District of Columbia law failed any standard of review for measures curtailing individual rights, especially since the right of self-defense in one's home is central to national tradition. Scalia's decision thus rested on two different grounds for finding the law unconstitutional: interfering with the right to bear commonly used weapons and interfering with the right of self-defense and defense of one's family and property. The licensing requirement was not unconstitutional, but individuals must be allowed to register guns and receive licenses for home use.

Dissent

John Paul Stevens (Author)

David H. Souter

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Stephen G. Breyer

Reviewing some of the same historical evidence as Scalia, Stevens felt that the Second Amendment would have expressly protected the individual right to bear arms if such was the drafters' intention. By contrast, he placed great weight on the prefatory clause in finding that its protections extended only to the militia. Stevens also pointed out that the state constitutions mentioned the right of self-defense as a justification of the right to bear arms, which suggested that this rationale was not present in the Second Amendment, since it did not mention self-defense. He criticized the majority for departing from settled Court jurisprudence on this issue and noted that many decisions in the lower courts would need to be repudiated or overturned.

Dissent

Stephen G. Breyer (Author)

David H. Souter

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

John Paul Stevens

Even if the majority was correct in finding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms, according to Breyer, the challenged laws still would be constitutional. Gun control laws serve a compelling government interest in public safety, and historically cities and states were able to regulate the use of weapons by civilians. Citing national statistics on gun-related violence, Breyer felt that the majority went too far in finding that residents of blighted neighborhoods had a constitutional right to keep loaded guns in their homes. He argued that the individual interest in the right of self-defense was outweighed by the state interest in preventing crime. Also, Breyer pointed out that classifying weapons as common or unconventional risked creating a slippery slope if broader types of dangerous weapons were legalized by legislatures.

Case Commentary

This decision may have less dramatic an impact than some observers initially expected. It did lead to a surge of litigation in lower federal courts regarding gun control laws. Most of these lawsuits have failed, however, and states still have the right to prevent criminals, illegal immigrants, drug addicts, and other high-risk groups from gaining access to weapons. Contrary to Breyer's fears, the group of weapons that is deemed constitutional for individual use has not expanded to machine guns or other types of unconventional weapons. School zones and areas around federal buildings still can be subject to restrictions, and concealed carry laws as well as laws against straw purchases generally were left intact.

The heavily historical nature of the opinion does make it a useful window onto the reasoning of the current Justices, which can help others in crafting constitutional challenges.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

# data[].attributes.body
Scalia said, "We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution."
They also said it went against the Operative Clause.

# data[].attributes.body
Q: Do the provisions of the District of Columbia Code restrict the licensing of handguns and require licensed firearms kept in the home to be kept nonfunctional violate the Second Amendment?
A: The ban on registering handguns and the requirements to keep guns in the home disassembled or nonfunctional with a trigger lock mechanism violate the Second Amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
The significance of this case is that the District of Columbia was voted that it did go against the 2nd Amendment because it banned firearms that didn't have to do with the military and they were taking away individual rights to bare arms.