District Of Columbia Vs Heller Case Summary

Through court cases like District of Columbia v. Heller, the Second Amendment was clarified to extend the right to possess firearms for “traditionally lawful purposes” from simply militia related services. McDonald v. Chicago further expanded the application of the Second Amendment by holding that it was applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, these two cases were tied together as the Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that the right to self-defense was a “fundamental” and “deeply rooted” right which in turn allowed the Supreme Court to rule that based on the 14th Amendment and the precedent established in the Heller case that the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee of the right to bear arms was applicable to states for the purpose of self-defense. There are three

Regulation, moderate and anti-regulation supporters each have valid arguments on this topic. Pro-regulation advocates argue that regulation is needed in order to ensure that firearms will not fall into the wrong hands, which in turn will reduce gun violence crime rates. President Barrack Obama is a huge supporter for this side with his “Now is the time” plan detailing executive actions such as the appointment of a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Detailed logistics plan out the removal of armor piercing bullets from circulation, limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds each. Preventive measures such as extensive background checks and increased education for children in schools is also included in this plan. It also aims to create quality coverage for mental treatment for convicted criminals or those who are deemed to be a risk. More extreme pro-regulation advocates wish to see all firearms banned despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that