DC vs Heller - Case Brief

DC v. Heller • Facts: – Parties: • • – – • Heller applies for a registration certificate for a handgun he wants to keep at home and is denied the certificate. Heller files a lawsuit in the Federal District Court of DC seeking to enjoin DC from enforcing its handgun ban on the grounds that it violates the Second Amendment. The District Court dismisses Heller’s complaint. The Court of Appeals reverses, finding that the trigger lock requirement would render a firearm inoperable for self-defense in one’s own home. It also holds that the City’s total ban on handguns + the above interoperability requirement violates self-defense rights under the 2nd Amendment. The Court grants Cert. The the District of Columbia’s statute prohibiting handguns infringe on Heller’s Second Amendment protection of the “right to bear arms”? (Yes) Holding: • DC has a law on the books that makes it illegal to possess handguns, but individuals can obtain a 1-year license from the Chief of Police of DC to carry a handgun Issue: • Defendant: Dick Heller (special police officer in DC who is permitted to carry a handgun on duty at the judiciary building in the city) Procedural Posture: – • Plaintiff: District of Columbia The prohibitions that the District of Columbia’s statute has placed on handgun rights are unconstitutional. Rationale: – The Operative Clause • The Constitution and Bill of Rights use the phrase “the right of the people.” to Scalia this means that any of the rights that use that language are “individual rights” not “collective rights” that are exercised through participation in a larger body of individuals. • But what about the Preamble, Section 2 of Article 1 (relating to the people selecting members of the House) the 10th Amendment, which all refer to a collective “people?” • To Scalia, these provisions deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not individual rights. • Scalia then contrasts this version of “the people” with “the Militia.” – • He claims that the “people” refers to the political collective – all individuals who make up society, whereas “the militia” is a subset of that collective – able-bodied males within a certain age range. • “arms.” – weapons that were not designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. • “keep arms” is simply a common way, historically, of saying “possessing arms for militiamen and everyone else.” • “Bear arms” – Scalia points out that bearing arms, as Justice Ginsburg has suggested, refers to actually wearing and displaying arms. • However, Scalia suggests that though the phrase implies “carrying an arm” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization, in this case, a militia. • Scalia then references several treatises and historical documents to conclude that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms by a militia. • He then attacks the Dissenting definition of “bearing arms,” and dismisses it by saying it never was intended to have military connotations as the Dissent argued. • Scalia believes that the Operative Clause guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. • Notably, Scalia believes that the right to bear arms is a pre-existing right – one that exists outside of society – this is in line with Hobbes’ and Locke’s thinking about the right of self-defense in the state of nature. The Prefatory Clause • • What is a well-regulated militia and why does it matter? – According to Scalia, at the time of the Founding, militias were already thought to have been existence. So while the Congress can call forth a militia by way of its legislative powers, it doesn’t have the power to “create” it, as it already should exist. – Well what is “well-regulated” then? – nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. Nothing more. What is the “the security of a free state” mean? – According to Scalia, it means the security of a free “polity” or “political entity.” Scalia argues that this does not mean, as the Dissent has argued, that it means the several States that make up the Union. – Scalia references several philosophical works of the time to show how the usage of “free state” would have meant free society and not individual states. • Why does a militia matter to the security of a “free society” according to Scalia? – – – – Useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections Renders large standing armies unnecessary (Hamilton argued this in Federalist) When able-bodied men are able to be trained and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny. Conflict between Prefatory and Operative Clauses • Between the two clauses, Scalia chooses to focus on the operative clause, stating the it was the Founder’s intention to prevent the elimination of militias (that is the whole purpose the prefatory clause is worded the way it is). • But that’s not the only thing – judicial interpretation of the 2nd Amendment means that the Founders valued the ancient right of hunting and self-defense.