Gil Adrian Block 2
District of Columbia v. Heller, 544 U.S. (2008) 2nd Amendment
Summation of fact: The two parties that were involved in this court case are the District of Columbia and a group of private gun owners led in the court case by Dick Anthony Heller. The basic facts are that the District of Columbia tried to pass provisions to a law that would ultimately ban hand guns in D.C. except for those which had been registered before the ban and would also require for other firearms to be kept dismantled or with a trigger lock set. Dick Heller is a police officer in D.C. and he was trying to get a license for his handgun since he is to have one at work he should also be able to have one at home. However, because of the new provisions he could not get this completed and he decided to fight it in court. He lost at first in court when it was said that the second amendment rights are reserved only for those in a militia, but then appealed and won in the circuit courts who said that the second amendment extended to all the people. But then it was appealed again and therefore taken to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues: The legal issue in this court case was if the District of Columbia was allowed to pass provisions like the ones it passed which would ban the owning of hand guns and require other firearms to be kept in certain specific conditions. This court case and issue tie in with the second amendment because it clearly states how we have a right to bear arms. However, what the Supreme Court had to ultimately decide was whether that right to bear arms was for everyone in the country or just for those who were in a militia.
Adrian Gil Block 2 Court Decision: The decision of the Supreme Court was in favor of Heller for this court case. The second amendment was indeed being violated the when District of Columbia tried to ban hand guns. i) The breakdown of the votes in this court case was incredibly close. The vote was a 5 4 split so it was straight down the middle and a one vote decision. The justices that voted with Heller were Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. The justices that voted against Heller with the District of Columbia were Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. ii) The main argument that the majority opinion had, written by Scalia, was that the second amendment protected the rights of individuals when it came to holding firearms. The second amendment did not say that the citizen needed to be part of a militia and when it was written the founders meant that everyone was allowed to own a firearm. A handgun is a firearm and therefore is included in this protection so the District of Columbia is wrong to ban it. Justice Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion and his main arguments were that the Supreme Court has not deemed any other firearm regulation as unconstitutional so why is this one the exception? Then he made the old argument that when the second amendment was written it only meant citizens who were part of the militia. iii) This was definitely affected by the ideology of the justices. It was literally split to the point where each judge voted towards his own ideology. All of the conservative judges voted for the guns to be able to be kept which is what a normal conservative person would side with, and all of the liberal judges voted to have tighter gun control which is what is expected by them. iv) This decision was special because it involved the District of Columbia and that is not a state. Therefore this decision was unlike something before but it was eventually used as a precedent with the United States enclaves.