District of Columbia v. Heller [SCOTUS brief]By The Federalist Society

Joyce Lee Malcolm:

Dick Heller was a policeman who helped to guard the federal buildings and carried a gun in order to do that. But when he wanted to have a gun at home to protect himself in his home, he wasn't allowed to do it because of Washington. DC's very, very strict law Heller and several other petitioners got together and worked organized by Robert Levy to bring a case to actually test what the core meaning of the Second Amendment was and whether there was an individual right to be armed or not. District of Columbia versus Heller case was the first time that the US Supreme Court actually analyzed the core meaning of the Second Amendment to decide whether there was an individual, right, for people to have arms to protect themselves and for other lawful purposes. Or there was only a collective, right for members of a well-regulated militia. It was extremely controversial. A lot was riding on it, so there was a great deal of concern. There were dozens of reefs that got submitted.

Joyce Lee Malcolm:

The District of Columbia's main arguments were that there was no individual right to be armed. This was just a collective, right for members of a military unit like the militia. And secondly, because the amendment said in its preamble, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. It could not apply to Washington because Washington was not a state. Heller argued that there was an individual, right, mainly for self-defense. That was what the Second Amendment meant. It was a preexisting right from English history and therefore this Washington statute, which deprived residents of being able even to have a gun in their own homes and if they had something, it had to be locked up. It was useless for self-defense, but that deprived them of their second Amendment right. It was a five to four decision. The majority opinion by Scalia went into all kinds of the history of the right to be armed from the British history to early America and the statutes.

Joyce Lee Malcolm:

He even looked at dictionaries from the time period to see how they translated bear arms. It was unusual, I think, especially in such an important case, but I think it was because they had never really analyzed the meaning of the second Amendment, that they had to go back to the very beginning and take a look at what was meant on the other side. You had two or three descent, but all of them were looking at the background. So it was unusual in that, and in fact, there was some article afterwards referring to them as the history Boys Stevens, who wrote major descent, looked into the drafting history and his view was that virtually every word in the main clause, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be in enriched. He interpreted to have solely a military meaning. Therefore, the right of the people only referred to the right of people who were in the militia.

Joyce Lee Malcolm:

Breyer was the one who admitted that it didn't matter how good or bad this law was, it shouldn't be up to the court. It should be up to the legislature to decide that. The impact has been very mixed because lower courts and the appeal courts continue to operate as if Heller did not exist. And because the Supreme Court has been reluctant for 10 years to take up any of those cases, the appellate decisions have stood, and so they have eroded the meaning of an importance of Heller. And Justice Thomas has called it a constitutional orphan, and so far that's what it is.

YouTube Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2it3XF1fSDY

Credit: Joyce Lee Malcom, The Federalist Society

If you want to know about Gun laws in DC, read this Gun Laws in DC | Joseph A. Scrofano