The Case Of District Of Columbia Vs Heller

The District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) considered the constitutionality of The District of Columbia law banning the possession of handguns. The Court upheld the federal appeals court decision, striking down both elements of the D.C. gun law. In addition, the Court broke down the Second Amendment into two different views. The operative clause and the prefatory clause assisted Justice Scalia in the Courts opinion and Justice Stevens in dissent. I agree with Justice Stevens’s dissented opinion for several reasons. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), centered on the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Court divided the Second Amendment into two parts, the operative clause and the prefatory clause. Justice Scalia stated that, under

After deeply analyzing the Second Amendment, Justice Stevens concluded that the Founders of The Constitution would have specified the individual right as an aspect of the Second Amendment if that was intended. In other words, the Second Amendment does not create an unlimited right to possess firearms in self-defense. The militia preamble demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on the state militia service only. Moreover, regarding D.C. v. Heller (2008), the Court concluded that the individual right to bear arms does not extend to felons or mentally ill. Thus, the background check requirement for all gun sales does not violate the Second Amendment. The background check is very important because it draws a line between who can purchase a firearm and who cannot. Also, under the rational basis test the burden of proof is on the party making the challenge to demonstrate that the law of policy is unconstitutional. The party must demonstrate that the law or policy does not have a rational basis. However, this is difficult to prove, because a court can usually find some reasonable ground for sustaining the constitutionality of the challenged law or policy. Furthermore, the proposed on the ban of assault weapons with military-style features and high capacity magazines is consistent with the Second Amendment. The Court concluded in D.C. v. Heller (2008) that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to own “any weapon whatsoever,” and “dangerous and unusual weapons” may be prohibited. The Court agreed that such bans do not infringe the Second Amendment, for the prohibition of semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines do not disarm individuals or affect