The court case, “District of Columbia vs. Heller” was a lawsuit filed against the District of Columbia for supposedly, infringing upon the rights protected by the second amendment. The suit was filed by Dick Heller, a police officer in Washington, DC. In an attempt to lower the crime rates, DC placed a ban on all handguns. The chief of police was allowed to give licenses to own handguns for a year, but denied most applicants. After heller and several others were denied, they brought the issue up to the local district court, which ruled in favor of the ban. The case worked its way up to the Supreme Court. In a five to four vote, the majority decided that the ban was in fact a violation of the second amendment rights. Justice Scalia's argument
…show more content…
collective right. He argued that the second amendment was divided into two segments, its prefatory clause, and more importantly, operative clauses. Scalia also suggested that the amendment be reworded to say, "the right of the people." To support this, he talked about the first amendment, and how it stated, "the right of the people." His point being that the other amendments protected the rights of all citizens, so the second amendment should too. However, the way the amendment was interpreted was that state militias had the "right to bear arms," and also that the word "bear" actually meant to possess with the intent of confronting someone in an offensive or defensive manner. By referring to how in the constitution it says citizens have the right to self preservation, and he infers that this means we should have the right to defend ourselves and not just our communities. To support his reasoning, Scalia uses the opinions of scholars, and historians who had also believed that the people who drafted the second amendment intended the right to apply to individuals and not just state militias. Another strong piece of evidence he used was the fact that several other states had already decided to interpret the amendment in such a
collective right. He argued that the second amendment was divided into two segments, its prefatory clause, and more importantly, operative clauses. Scalia also suggested that the amendment be reworded to say, "the right of the people." To support this, he talked about the first amendment, and how it stated, "the right of the people." His point being that the other amendments protected the rights of all citizens, so the second amendment should too. However, the way the amendment was interpreted was that state militias had the "right to bear arms," and also that the word "bear" actually meant to possess with the intent of confronting someone in an offensive or defensive manner. By referring to how in the constitution it says citizens have the right to self preservation, and he infers that this means we should have the right to defend ourselves and not just our communities. To support his reasoning, Scalia uses the opinions of scholars, and historians who had also believed that the people who drafted the second amendment intended the right to apply to individuals and not just state militias. Another strong piece of evidence he used was the fact that several other states had already decided to interpret the amendment in such a