District of Columbia vs Heller

The basis for DC versus Heller came about because of Robert Levy, who was trying to build several cases for a lawsuit which would challenge gun control laws using the second amendment. The regulations in question were whether it was constitutional to require firearms be kept disassembled or with the trigger locked. Six cases were made against the same regulations, with Dick Heller as one of them. First, the lawsuit was struck down in the court of original jurisdiction, so an appeal was made to the appellate courts. However, of the six cases, the court determined that one Heller had standing to sue, or the legal basis for a lawsuit on account of harm done specifically. Heller was prohibited from carrying the weapon he needed a special police officer in his home.

The DC Court of Appeals overruled the previous decision, declaring the regulations in question unconstitutional because a gun that is unloaded, in pieces, or locked, is not usable in a self-defense situation. In regard to restrictions on handguns themselves, the court decided that handguns are “arms” as stated in the Second Amendment, and are protected from being prohibited, but are still subject to reasonable restrictions.

The defendants, representing DC, were denied a rehearing but the US Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. This case was the first case since US vs Miller that had dealt with the power and meaning of the Second Amendment. Some of the politicians who supported an affirmative court decision were Dick Cheney and John McCain, along with a Congress majority. The Supreme Court sustained the previous decision; the DC regulations were unconstitutional, and that Heller had the right to carry an unlocked, loaded handgun in his house. The Court had reassessed US vs Miller and decided that the term “militia” was meant to include a very wide percentage of all people, and therefore it does not discriminate against people owning guns. However, the court also upheld that reasonable restrictions could be placed on handguns and other firearms, mainly those which are not typically used for sport or defense. Overall, the court addressed the issue of original intent concerning the Second Amendment, and determined that the idea of a militia of the people does not restrict individuals from owning guns. The District of Columbia had to issue Heller a license for his handgun. The city had to pay over 1 million dollars to Heller’s counsel.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/29/dc-vs-heller-city-ordered_n_1174968.html