DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VS HELLER : CASE SUMMARY
The Supreme Court in District of Columbia Vs Heller (2008) held that District of Columbia law prohibiting possession of usable handgun is unconstitutional.
FACTS OF THE CASE
District of Columbia prohibited possession of handguns. It was a crime to carry an unregistered firearm. No person could carry a handgun without a license. Chief of Police could have issued license for a year. Columbia Law also required residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms unloaded and disassembled or bound by trigger lock or similar device unless they were located in place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities.
Dick Heller was police officer. He was authorized to keep a handgun while on duty. He applied for registration certificate for keeping handgun at home, which was refused. He filed lawsuit before Federal District Court claiming that such prohibition violated 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. District Court dismissed the lawsuit but the Court of Appeals upheld it. Finally, the matter reached to the Supreme Court.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The Supreme Court considered in this case whether District of Columbia prohibition on possession of usable handgun violates 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.
Second Amendment provided that a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It was contended by the Petitioners that Second Amendment protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondents that it protects an individual right to possess firearm unconnected with service of militia and to use the arm for lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
The Supreme Court held that Second Amendment did not limit the right bear arms only to militia service. The Supreme Court analyzed the second amendment in historical perspective and held that right has been granted to own weapon for self-defense, hunting and other lawful purposes. The Supreme Court observed that right to self-defense is deeply rooted in common law tradition.
The Supreme Court observed that handguns are the most popular choice for self defense in American homes. The Supreme Court declared banning handgun unconstitutional.
At the same time the Supreme Court observed that right to own firearms is not unlimited. Gun regulations can be made to prohibit ownership of guns by felons and mentally ill. Gun regulations can also be made for forbidding the carrying on of firearms in sensitive places like schools, government buildings and imposing restriction on commercial sale of arms.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE STEVENS
Justice Stevens was of the view the Second Amendment primarily granted right to own firearms to form and maintain militia, rather than for self-defense.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE BREYER
Justice Breyer was of the view that Court should have applied balancing test between city’s public safety interests and individual right to own handgun. The judgment of the Court will make it difficult to regulate firearms.
IMPACT OF THE JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court in this judgment recognized explicitly right to own firearms for self-defense. By subsequent judgments principle pronounced by the Supreme Court has been incorporated in State Jurisdictions. After this judgment regulation of ownership has become difficult. USA is facing several spells of mass shooting causing several deaths every year. There is immediate need for review of this judgment.
____________________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.