ipl-logo

The Case Of District Of Columbia Vs Heller

1007 Words5 Pages

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 …show more content…

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

Show More
Related
305 Words | 2 Pages

C. Precedent The law is unconstitutional not only due to the meaning of the text itself, but also from many cases of precedent. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) have already established the importance of the Second Amendment, but there are other cases as well that back up the courts decision claiming the ban on carrying a concealed weapon is unconstitutional. In Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Litt. 90, (KY 1822), established that the right to bear arms was for defense against themselves and the state. This case consisted of a man carrying a concealed weapon in his cane and it is similar to the one in which we face today.

Read More
533 Words | 3 Pages

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

Read More
852 Words | 4 Pages

Because they are interchangeable, this proves Heller’s use of the Second Amendment is invalid. He clearly was not going to use the handgun for military service. The fact that the Second Amendment does not protect Heller is further validated by Madison’s draft of the constitution where he included a clause that stated “"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country ". These clearly proves that the constitution only protect the rights of the militia to use guns on the basis on national security. Heller’s license to have it in his home cannot affect the nation’s security, but only his own, making this defense flawed (Chicago

Read More
452 Words | 2 Pages

Hamilton’s case, we notice that if the court deems the “good cause” law a presumptively constitutional statute she will have no Second Amendment protection afforded to her. Furthermore, if this case is followed as precedent the court may deem that the “good cause” requirement may pass the appropriate level of scrutiny. The court may search for a clear and substantial government interest that justifies the good cause requirement as the court did in Drake. In addition, the court may rule that the Second Amendment does not apply to concealed carry outside of the home, thereby dissolving any argument that Ms. Hamilton could produce.

Read More
604 Words | 3 Pages

Chicago (State Case) 5-4 under the opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that rights that are "fundamental to the Nation 's scheme of ordered liberty" or that are "deeply rooted in this Nation 's history and tradition" are appropriately applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court recognized in Heller that the right to self-defense was one such "fundamental" and "deeply rooted" right (McDonald v. Chicago. (n.d.)). The previous cases are what gives people the right to bear arms in the United States with the injunction of the constitution.

Read More
1024 Words | 5 Pages

This said that the amendment didn’t really take place if a state law didn’t agree to it. Another case was Another very similar example was the case United States vs Jack Miller. The website observed, “In the 1939 case of United States v Jack Miller, police arrested known bank robber Jack Miller and his associate, Frank Layton, for carrying an unregistered gun across state lines, which was prohibited by the National Firearms Act. The men claimed that the Act violated their Second Amendment rights, but the court disagreed. The court ruled that the Amendment allows the government to regulate ownership of certain types of firearms, including fully automatic firearms and short-barreled rifles and shotguns.”

Read More
880 Words | 4 Pages

INTRODUCTION Guns. It is a topic that the Supreme Court hasn’t dealt with since Heller v. District of Columbia in 2008, and they have not looked poised to take it on anytime soon. However, a new case has found it’s way into the 9th Circuit: Peruta v. San Diego County. Due to the duration of time between Heller and Peruta the courts have been forced to rule on Second Amendment cases without the guidance of the Supreme Court. Peruta is now forcing the courts to begin examining the Second Amendment again and looking into what rights American citizens are given from it.

Read More
930 Words | 4 Pages

The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is the right to bear arms, which gives American citizens a constitutional right to own and purchase guns. It states, "A well-regulated

Read More
95 Words | 1 Pages

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms. When the Second Amendment was written it was for the right to arm oneself as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, gun advocates proclaim that guns are for the right to self-defense. Some people try to participate and uphold the law. We have seen how guns in the hands of children can cause fatal accidents and people have committed mindless crimes leading to

Read More
309 Words | 2 Pages

It is an ongoing debate whether or not people should be able to own a gun. People look at the laws and interpret it the way they feel it should be understood. People for gun control would say, “The second amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns.” People who are against guns control would claim, “The second amendment of the US constitution protect individual gun ownership.” In those two claims they use the second amendment to make a point.

Read More
1297 Words | 6 Pages

In contrast, Opponents believe that arms should have regulations because they cause violence, such as mass shootings and murder. Despite the differences on each side, the second amendment aids in the protection of all individual rights of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense when necessary. As a result, the definition of the right to bear arms has to be provided. The second amendment is quite a chicanery clause to understand, the first part of the clause states “ a well-regulated militia.” “Well regulated…” was defined in the eighteenth century, as properly but not overly regulated (Roleff 69).

Read More
1991 Words | 8 Pages

The Second Amendment says, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Gun rights has become the subject of intense political, social, and cultural battles for much of the last century. The pro-gun right side has asserted that the right to arms was absolute, and that any gun control laws infringed that right (Kopel, 2013). This right has been supported by the Supreme Court who has reinforced what has become the American consensus that the Second Amendment allows the right to keep and bear arms, especially for self-defense, and that it is a fundamental individual

Read More
707 Words | 3 Pages

Since the begining of America, the Founding Fathers wrote the strong-standing Bill of Rights with amendments to protect the country that had just recently won their freedom, but one amendment has been the top theme of controversies for centuries. Gun laws offend the Bill of Rights in so many ways and they prove ineffective. Gun Laws are relevant due to thousands of deaths and self-protection. The argument goes on but without guns there is militia, one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. These simple rules can reduce deaths, proven by millions of influential people.

Read More
1386 Words | 6 Pages

According to the Second Amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment specifically states that “the right of the people to keep

Read More
730 Words | 3 Pages

Do you think that greater gun control is a good idea? Maybe you’re aware but would you be willing to altercate to a certain extent to make sure your community feels protected? Perhaps you’re willing to get equal rights with gun laws , or just don’t like the idea of anyone being able to purchase and carry guns freely. Why carry a gun if eventually it will be used to innocent people, and for what? For your protection?

Read More

More about The Case Of District Of Columbia Vs Heller

Related Topics

Open Document