District of Columbia v. Heller

TL;DR Summary

The Holding

Facts of the Case

Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certificate to keep a handgun at home, but the District denied his application.

At the time, D.C. law:

• Generally prohibited the possession of handguns
• Required residents to keep lawfully owned firearms "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device"
• Prohibited carrying a pistol without a license, which the police chief could issue for one year

Heller sued, claiming these provisions violated his Second Amendment right to keep a functional firearm in his home for self-defense.

Majority Opinion (Justice Scalia)

Textual Analysis

Justice Scalia's majority opinion conducted an extensive analysis of the Second Amendment's text:

"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose."

— Justice Scalia, Majority Opinion

Operative Clause: "Right of the People"

The Court found that "the people" refers to individuals, not a collective body:

• Consistent with usage in the First and Fourth Amendments
• All six other provisions using "the people" refer to individual rights
• Nowhere else does "the people" refer to a select militia subset

"Keep and Bear Arms"

The Court interpreted this phrase:

• "Keep": To have or possess, most naturally read as "to have weapons"
• "Bear": To carry for confrontation, not limited to military context
• "Arms": Weapons of offense or defense, not limited to military weapons

Historical Understanding

The opinion examined extensive historical evidence:

English Background

"By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects."

Founding Era

The Court cited:

• State constitutional provisions from 1776-1780
• Anti-Federalist concerns about federal power
• State ratification convention proposals
• Early commentators like St. George Tucker and William Rawle

Relationship to Militia

"[The prefatory clause] announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting."

Limitations Acknowledged

Importantly, the Court stated the right is not unlimited:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

The Court noted these remain "presumptively lawful":

• Prohibitions on carrying firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings
• Laws forbidding the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons"
• Laws imposing conditions on commercial sales of arms
• Prohibitions on concealed weapons
• Longstanding prohibitions on possession by felons and mentally ill

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Stevens' Dissent

Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, argued:

• The amendment protects only militia-related uses of firearms
• The Framers' primary concern was military
• Historical evidence supports a militia-focused reading
• The majority's interpretation departs from settled law

"The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia."

— Justice Stevens, Dissenting

Justice Breyer's Dissent

Justice Breyer, joined by the same Justices, focused on:

• Even if individual right exists, D.C.'s regulations are reasonable
• Courts should apply interest-balancing approach
• Urban crime and safety justify the restrictions
• Historical precedent for firearm regulation

Impact & Significance

Immediate Effects

• Struck down D.C.'s handgun ban
• Invalidated requirement to keep guns inoperable in the home
• Established individual right interpretation as Supreme Court precedent
• Required D.C. to issue Heller a registration certificate

Broader Legal Impact

• First Supreme Court case to definitively interpret the Second Amendment as an individual right
• Ended debate over "individual vs. collective right" interpretation
• Set stage for incorporation in McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
• Spawned numerous challenges to firearm regulations nationwide

Standard of Review Question

Heller did not specify the level of constitutional scrutiny for Second Amendment challenges, leading to circuit splits until Bruen (2022) established the "text, history, and tradition" test.

What Heller Did NOT Say

Citations & Resources