District of Columbia v. Heller

Background

A District of Columbia law banned registration of handguns, criminalized carrying an unlicensed handgun, allowed the police chief to issue one-year licenses, and required firearms in the home to be unloaded and disassembled or trigger-locked. A D.C. special police officer, Dick Heller, applied to register a handgun to keep at home and was denied. He sued, seeking to block enforcement of the handgun registration ban, the licensing rules as applied to carrying in the home, and the lock-and-storage rule for self-defense.

Reasoning

The Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms unrelated to militia service, and to use arms for lawful purposes such as self-defense inside the home. The Court read the Amendment’s operative clause in light of its prefatory clause and historical sources. It also said the right is not unlimited: longstanding restrictions on felons, the mentally ill, sensitive places, and unusual weapons remain valid. The Court found the District’s total handgun ban and the rule making in-home firearms inoperable for self-defense unconstitutional. The Court assumed a licensing regime that is not arbitrary would satisfy Heller’s relief and did not invalidate licensing generally.

Real world impact

People in the District who are not disqualified by law may now obtain and keep handguns in their homes for self-defense and may seek a license to carry a registered handgun at home. The decision leaves many gun regulations intact but removes an absolute local ban on handguns and an absolute in-home inoperability requirement.

Dissents or concurrances

Three Justices dissented separately and argued the Amendment protects militia-related interests and that a broad balancing approach should allow the District’s law. Two other Justices wrote a separate dissent noting public safety concerns.