District of Columbia v. Heller was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. The case was the first case to conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia. The case consisted of a police officer who wished to have a gun at home “only when needed for self-defense”. The first of the two D.C. laws in question banned possession of handguns by citizens, with few exceptions, while the other demanded all firearms to be either always unloaded and disassembled or trigger-locked. The Heller majority concluded that the first two regulations are in fact unconstitutional and that the Second Amendment does protect the right to keep and bear arms unconnected with service in a militia and to use these arms within one’s home for “traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home”. The Heller decision did however leave unaddressed whether the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense extended outside of one’s home.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “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.” According to the Heller majority, this clause renders unconstitutional a blanket prohibition on possessing a functional handgun in one’s home at any time. The Court did emphasize in their decision, that the opinion should not be read as casting doubt on some well-established prohibitions regarding the possession of firearms “by felons and the mentally ill”; laws which prohibited carrying firearms in “sensitive places” such as schools or government buildings or laws establishing conditions for the “commercial sale of firearms”.
The Heller case left some uncertainty as to the scope to which the extension of constitutional rights in Heller was to be enforceable against the states. Thus, the same day Heller was decided, a suit was filed against Chicago (McDonald v. City of Chicago) arguing that the individual right to keep and bear arms in one’s home established in Heller must be enforced against state and local action. The case was heard in front of the Supreme Court and the Court ruled that the individual right established in Heller is in fact incorporated against the states.
The Supreme Court in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, scheduled for mid-2022, might render unconstitutional a restriction in New York State related to bearing hidden handguns in public places. This type of ruling – if in favor of the plaintiffs, which includes an affiliate of the National Rifle Association – could take down regulatory schemes regarding gun possession in several U.S. states. Thus, if the Court does strike down the New York law, Americans should expect an increase in the amount of people bearing lawful firearms in communities. Followers of the Court agree that there are three possible outcomes in regards to the Bruen case. The Court could respect the New York law, strike it down or reach some sort of middle ground such as issuing a narrow verdict which covers big questions regarding restrictions of firearms in the future. As the court has a 6-3 conservative supermajority, the likeliest outcome would be one of the latter options.
Heller has had a huge impact on gun regulation in the U.S. as the Court had stayed silent on the individual right to possess firearms up to that point. The case was viewed as an astounding victory for the gun rights lobby. Much like the reality of the bench is today, in 2009 the Court had a 6-3 supermajority of Republican nominated justices. With gun rights as an issue most pressing on the political right, with the U.S. electoral system and structure of the U.S. Senate (the only political institutions getting a say in the nomination of justices) heavily favoring the Republican party and the gun lobby getting ever louder, there will no doubt be an ever growing presence of judicial activism regarding gun rights. As a testament to this, only a mere decade after the individual right to possess firearms within the home was established, the Court will most likely expand that right to be protected and enforced nearly everywhere. Aside from the speculation and analysis, one thing is clear: the effects of Heller will remain to loom large and far into the future.
The Lawslingers