The licensing requirement was not unconstitutional, but individuals must be allowed to register guns and receive licenses for home use. Scalia's decision thus rested on two different grounds for finding the law unconstitutional: interfering with the right to bear commonly used weapons and interfering with the right of self-defense and defense of one's family and property. This was in part because he felt that the District of Columbia law failed any standard of review for measures curtailing individual rights, especially since the right of self-defense in one's home is central to national tradition. Scalia declined to identify the standard of review that he applied, or guide courts on what standard to apply for future Second Amendment decisions. Dangerous and unusual weapons are not constitutionally protected. Thus, his opinion was not an unqualified endorsement of the right to bear arms for any reason in any manner at any location. (Only these types of weapons could have been used by the militia.) States also can prevent convicted criminals from carrying weapons, limit their use in school zones or government buildings, and forbid the carrying of concealed weapons. Miller as a proper restriction to weapons that are in common use for lawful purposes. Scalia acknowledged that there might be some limitations on the type of weapon that could fit within this right, referring to U.S. He took readers on a lengthy tour of interpretations of the Second Amendment through the following centuries, finding that both the legal academy and legislators agreed with his perspective. Scalia pointed out that state constitutions crafted similar provisions near the same time as the Second Amendment, and the Amendment's drafting history includes several proposals from the states that would have expressly protected the individual right to bear arms. He analyzed the structure of the document, especially the prefatory clause, as well as its history. Keeping guns unloaded and disassembled also was impermissible because it hindered individuals in exercising the right of self-defense.Įmphatically ruling that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to possess arms and use them for self-defense inside the home, Scalia found that it extended well beyond the traditional meaning of militias. The court defined handguns as arms within the meaning of the Second Amendment and held that the Amendment extends to rights beyond participating in the militia. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, finding that Heller had standing. While their case was dismissed by the federal district court, the D.C. The six plaintiffs sought an injunction against the enforcement of this provision, as well as another provision of the law that required any guns to be kept unloaded and disassembled. The District of Columbia had enacted the Firearms Control Regulations Act in 1975, which prohibited individual ownership of handguns in most cases except those possessed by current or former law enforcement officers. They dropped out of the case in the early stages. This meant that he had standing to sue, whereas the others did not. The critical difference between Heller and the other plaintiffs was that he had applied for a handgun permit and been refused. Like the other plaintiffs, he lived in an area with high drug use and crime activity. The named plaintiff, Dick Heller, was a licensed special police officer for the District of Columbia who was not allowed to have a gun at home despite being able to use it at work. The group included a range of age groups, an even balance in genders, and two African-Americans. In a rather artificially generated lawsuit, Robert Levy at the Cato Institute selected six plaintiffs for a claim that would test the individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |