District Of Columbia V. Heller Case Analysis

The interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America has been a topic of controversy, ever since its acceptance over two-hundred years ago. One of the main issues with the amendment is, since its acceptance in 1791, many of the issues are now considered irrelevant and insignificant to our society today. One of the most well known Supreme Court cases is the infamous District of Columbia v. Heller case. It was the very first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The District of Columbia v. Heller, plays a crucial and decisive role in our constitutional rights to bear arms for self defence. In February 2003, the six residents of Washington, D.C. filed a lawsuit on the District of Columbia, challenging the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975. One of the plaintiff’s were Richard Heller. Mr. Heller believed the law made it impossible for him and others, to defend himself in his home. He also believed that the law violated the Second Amendment. The defendants argued that the first phrase of the amendment, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” limited the “right of the people” to have weapons only in connection with …show more content…
The Court thought that the opening clause gave one reason for the Second Amendment, but it did not end the right listed in the operative clause to own weapons only for militia service. “The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right…” The Court also reasoned that elsewhere in the Constitution, such as the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, the phrase “the right of the people” is used only to refer to individual rights—that is, rights held by people as individuals. It is this phrasing that is used in the operative clause of the Second