Law Case Explained by Quimbee
Hoping to reduce violent crime in the city. The Washington DC City Council passed the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, which effectively banned individual gun ownership in the district. The act generally prohibited DC residents from possessing handguns, but made some exceptions for police officers and security guards. The act also prohibited residents from keeping firearms in their homes without licenses and required that any licensed firearm kept in the home either be unloaded and disassembled or fitted with a trigger lock.
Dick Heller case
Dick Heller worked as a special police officer in Washington, dc As part of his employment, he was allowed to carry a handgun while at work wanting to keep a handgun in his home. After hours, he applied for a license to do so. The District of Columbia denied Heller's application. Heller sued the District of Columbia for violating his second Amendment rights. Based on its reading, the district court found that the Second Amendment does not create an individual right to gun ownership unrelated to service in an organized militia such as the National Guard, and thus the District Court dismissed Heller's complaint.
Second Amendment
The Court of Appeals found that the Second Amendment does create an individual right to gun ownership and reverse the lower court's decision. The United States Supreme Court granted tertiary. The issue on appeal was whether the DC law prohibiting the possession of handguns in the district or usable firearms in the home violated the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a narrow five to four decision, the Supreme Court held that the District of Columbia's law restricting Heller's ability to possess a firearm and altogether prohibiting Heller from keeping a handgun in his home, violated his second Amendment rights. Justice Scalia writing for the majority said that the Second Amendment protected heller's right to possess a firearm even if such possession was unconnected with service in a militia. Scalia engaged in a deep textual analysis and concluded that the Second Amendment's reference to the need for a well ordered militia was only an introductory clause indicating the amendment's purpose, but that it did not limit the right to bear arms guaranteed in the amendment's operative clause. Further, Scalia concluded that there was nothing in the legislative history of the Constitution, nor state constitutions acted around the same time, nor writings by contemporary scholars, nor even the antecedent English history showing that the founding fathers intended to limit gun ownership solely for militia purposes. The majority did allow that states must be free to regulate who can own firearms in order to address certain safety concerns. For example, a state may restrict convicted
District of Columbia's prohibition was unconstitutional
Felons and the mentally ill from gun ownership. However, because Heller did not fall into one of these narrow categories of gun owners who may threaten public safety, the court found the District of Columbia's prohibition on gun ownership to be overly broad and deemed it unconstitutional. Justice Stevens dissented relying on the court's decision in United States versus Miller. In that case, the court held that it was unlawful for two men to possess a sought off shotgun because their reasons for doing so or no relationship to the purpose of preserving a well-regulated militia. Stevens alleged that neither the text of the amendment nor the debates surrounding its passage indicated an interest in limiting the legislature's ability to regulate the private civilian uses of firearms. Rather, Stevens explained that the individual right to keep and bear arms was designed to be solely for the purpose of preserving a well-regulated militia.
Because Heller sought to own a handgun for self-defense and not as a member of a militia, Stevens contended that the District of Columbia may restrict such ownership without infringing on Heller's Second Amendment rights. In his dissent, justice Breyer asserted that the District of Columbia's law did not violate Heller's Second Amendment rights because the Second Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions. Breyer explained that the court must balance the burden a law may place on an individual's right to bear arms with the importance of a state's interest. In doing so, Breyer concluded that the District of Columbia's law did not unreasonably interfere with Heller's right of self-defense because its purpose was to combat the presence of handguns in high crime urban areas. And that interest was important enough to justify the restrictions. District of Columbia versus Heller was the first Supreme Court case to explore the meaning of the Second Amendment. Since United States versus Miller in 1939, Heller set the stage for the 2010 case of McDonald versus Chicago in which the Supreme Court expressly held that the Second Amendment was incorporated against the states.
If you found this video helpful, you can explore all of our content by visiting us@quimbee.com. If you have a question or comment about this case, please post it in the comments area below and we'll do our best to get back to you. If you think we did a good job with this video, please share and favorite it, and if you think this video might be helpful to people, please share on social media, Facebook, Twitter, and Google Plus as well to get this video out there. If you haven't done so already and you enjoy watching videos on this channel, click on the red subscribe button just below this video so you can get all the latest updates.
YouTube Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujnemrrqtpM
Credit: Quimbee
Also, read Updated CCW Safe Policy Review (2024) by Marc Victor