Table of Contents
Introduction
The district of Columbia law prohibits handgun possession by criminalizing carrying of unregistered firearm and barring the registration of handguns, the law gives a separate provision that an individual shall not carry an unlicensed firearm, however, the law permits the police chief to give 1year licenses, and it is a requirement for the residents to keep legally owned handguns dissembled and unloaded or bound by a trigger lock apparatus.
The petitioner Heller, a special D.C police officer sought permission to register a firearm he wanted to keep at home, yet the District declined his application (Blocher, (2008). The petitioner filed this suit pursuing based on the Second Amendment grounds, to include Dc from implementing the ban on firearm registration, the licensing need at the moment bars possessing an unlicensed handgun at home, in addition to the trigger lock device as it disallows functional firearms use at home.
The D.C circuit reversed the suit set aside by the District Court holding the view that the Second Amendment gives a person protection to own handguns. More so, the circuit held that the city’s full ban on handguns, in addition to the city’s requisites that firearms held at home should always be dissembled or on trigger lock devices; denied an individual his right to defend himself/herself when in danger
127 our experts are availableright now
Majority opinion District of Columbia v. Heller (2007-2008)
The Supreme Court held that the second amendment guarantees a person’s protection to own a firearm as long as the firearm is not related to use of unlawful deeds but for purposes of protection and self-defense inside the home. According to the majority ruling delivered by Scalia J, the firearm and trigger-lock apparatus requirement (when applied to self-defense) violates the second amendment act. The entire ban on firearm possession at home by the District is tantamount to the illegalization of different class ownership of ‘arms” which Americans unilaterally choose for the legal purpose of self-protection. Under some of the
normal scrutiny the court has used applications to enumerated constitutional rights, therefore the ban in the scenario where the value of legal defense of family, property, and self is paramount the ban would fail the constitutional rights agreed (Lee, 2009). Additionally, the need that for every legal firearm held at home the handgun must be dissembled or bound by trigger-lock device makes it absolutely impossible for citizens to use the lawfully held firearms for the primary lawful objective of self-defense and thus making the total ban unconstitutional.
In this ruling the Supreme Court considered Heller’s oral acceptance that the District law is allowed when not capriciously or arbitrarily enforced, the bench assumes that a license shall meet his prayer for relief even though licensing need is never addressed. Therefore, assuming the petitioner is not barred from exercising the second amendment rights; the District should allow the petitioner to register his handgun and must provide Heller a license to carry within the home. Being aware of the challenge of firearm violence in the country, and taking seriously the prayers of those that believe the ban on handgun possession is a remedy.
The constitution gives the city a range of tools for curbing the menace; this includes a number of measures regulating firearms (Magarian,2009). A constitutional enshrined right certainly takes particular policy an option off the negotiating table. This option includes the total prohibition of handguns used and possessed for self-defense within the home. Indisputably a number is of the opinion that the second amendment is outdated in a community where the nation’s army is the pride of the nation, and was a very well-trained disciplined force give private security, and a society that gun violence is a menace. According to them, this is arguable; however, what is not arguable of course is this court making the second amendment defunct.
Minority opinion District of Columbia v. Heller (2007-2008)
The Supreme Court’s dissenting opinion holds that the ruling of giving a fresh constitutional right to possess and the usage of handguns for personal objectives defeats the foregone understanding, yet it provides an uphill task for future litigations seeking definitions for the scope of allowable procedures and regulations. Particularly, the dissenting judgment delivered by Stevens noted that there is no sign that the drafters of the amendment desired to include the common-law right of self-protection as an integral part of the constitution.
The minority judge notes that the opinion announced by the court fails to find any new evidence giving support to the view that the amendment was meant congress power to minimize civilian use of weapons. Incapable to give any such findings, the announcement relies on an edgy and unimpressive understanding of the amendments context. With the assumption that majority of citizens are law steadfast, and given the reality that the desire to protect oneself might suddenly emerge in number of locations other than within the home, the judge in his opinion fears that the city’s policy choice might as well be the first of unidentified number of dominoes to be removed off the table.
Conclusion
Even though the ruling, in this case, provides a short implication to the formulation of the second amendment, the court focuses at length on other four primary sources: Blackstone’s commentaries on England laws, the Seventeen century English Bill of rights, the post-civil war legislative history, and the post-enactment commentary on the second amendment. The above sources give the slight answer to the bigger question before the court, and thus, in any event, offer small support to the court’s conclusion. The majority ruling thus expresses some elements of judicial restraint from the jury.
Works Cited
- Blocher, J. “District Of Columbia Vs Petitioners.” Supreme Court of United States 2008 (2008): No. 07-290.print
- Lee, Edward. “Guns and Speech Technologies: How the Right to bear arms affects Copyright Regulations of.” Chicago-Kent College of Law (2009): pp,2-54.print
- Magarian, Gregory. “Speaking Truth to Firepower: How the First amendment distabilizes the second.” Kent Law review (2009): 20-34. web.print
