District Of Columbia Vs Heller Case Study

Facts District of Columbia v. Heller was a landmark case, in which the Supreme Court voted in a 5-4 decision that Washington D.C.’s handgun ban and shotgun/rifle restrictions were unconstitutional, in which all shotguns and rifles had to be “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock”. Heller, a police officer in Washington D.C., wanted a handgun for private off-duty use at his home. He applied for a one-year gun permit, which was denied. Heller claims that the restrictions on firearms in D.C., and the rejection of his application, violates his 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Legal Issues
Does the District of Columbia’s restrictions on firearms, and the requirement that they be stored in an inoperable condition (via trigger lock) violate the 2nd Amendment? Is the District of Columbia exempt from the

Yet, it does not restrict the ability to bear arms only to militia. To read the Amendment as only allowing those in a militia to bear arms is exactly what the Amendment is trying to protect against and prevent; a state-sponsored force. Additionally, banning handguns, and requiring that all firearms must be kept in an inoperable condition, is also what the 2nd Amendment is trying to protect against. Handguns, which are a wide-array and a large majority of firearms that exist, being rendered inoperable, would make it impossible to defend one’s property. The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow an individual to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their property. Requiring that guns are kept inoperable while in storage in a person’s home, where firearms are typically most beneficial for personal protection, defeats the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment strives to protect guns, keep them in a functional condition, and allow ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms to protect their home and personal