554 U.S. 570 (2008)
The District of Columbia generally prohibits the possession of handguns.1 It is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and the registration of handguns is prohibited.2 Wholly apart from that prohibition, no person may carry a handgun without a license, but the chief of police may issue licenses for one-year periods.3
District of Columbia law also requires residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities.4
Respondent Dick Heller is a D.C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center.5 He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused.6 He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms within the home.7
The District Court dismissed respondent's complaint.8 The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, construing his complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense.9 The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent.10
The Supreme Court granted certiorari.11
Whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms unconnected with service in a militia and for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home?12
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.13 The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.14 The prefatory clause comports with this interpretation, as the militia was understood as the body of all citizens capable of military service who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons they possessed at home.15
Yes. The text refers to the right of the people, a phrase used elsewhere in the Constitution to denote individual rights rather than collective ones.16 Historical sources from the founding era, including state constitutional provisions and English common law antecedents, confirm that keep and bear arms was understood to protect individual possession and use for self-defense.17 The District's refusal to register Heller's handgun for home use directly implicates this right, as Heller is a law-abiding citizen seeking the weapon for self-defense in his home, and the total ban on handgun registration prohibits an entire class of arms overwhelmingly chosen for that purpose.18
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms unconnected with service in a militia and for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home.
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, And Breyer
Justice Stevens argued that the Second Amendment protects an individual right but limits its scope to militia-related uses.19 He maintained that the text, history, and precedent in Miller establish a military purpose, and that the Framers rejected proposals that would have protected civilian uses such as self-defense.20 In his view the District's laws are consistent with that limited right because they do not interfere with militia-related possession.21
Stevens emphasized that the Amendment's preamble identifies the preservation of the militia as its purpose and that the operative clause must be read in that light.22 He maintained that the Amendment's text and history demonstrate a military focus and that the Framers did not intend to enshrine a freestanding right of self-defense.23 Stevens concluded that the District's measures are consistent with the limited right he identified.24
Joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, And Ginsburg
Justice Breyer argued that even if the Amendment protects an individual self-defense interest, the District's handgun ban is a permissible regulation.25 He applied an interest-balancing approach, concluding that the District's compelling interests in saving lives and reducing crime justify the restriction, which is tailored to urban handgun violence and leaves other firearms available.26
Breyer stressed that the law imposes a burden proportionate to the serious problem of handgun violence in the District and that no less restrictive alternative would achieve the same public-safety objectives.27 He argued that the District's compelling interests in public safety justify the restriction and that the law is tailored to the problem of handgun violence while leaving rifles and shotguns available for other lawful uses.28
Whether the District of Columbia's prohibition on the registration of handguns violates the Second Amendment?29
A total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.30 Under any standard of scrutiny applied to enumerated rights, such a prohibition in the place where the need for defense is most acute fails constitutional muster.31
Yes. The District's outright prohibition on registering handguns prevents law-abiding citizens such as Heller from possessing the quintessential self-defense weapon in the home.32 The ban extends to the place where self-defense needs are most acute and cannot survive any level of scrutiny applied to enumerated constitutional rights.33 The Court assumes Heller is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights and therefore the District must permit registration of his handgun.34
The District of Columbia's prohibition on the registration of handguns violates the Second Amendment.
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, And Breyer
Justice Stevens would have upheld the registration ban because the Second Amendment, in his view, protects only militia-related uses and the District's laws do not impair organized militia service.35 He maintained that the Amendment's text and history demonstrate a military focus and that the Framers did not intend to enshrine a freestanding right of self-defense. Stevens concluded that the District's measures are consistent with the limited right he identified.
Stevens relied on the Amendment's preamble and drafting history to show that the Framers focused exclusively on preserving state militias against federal disarmament. He rejected any freestanding self-defense right as unsupported by text or history and concluded that the District's registration ban respects the Amendment's limited military purpose.
Joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, And Ginsburg
Justice Breyer would have upheld the registration ban as a reasonable legislative response to the unique dangers of handguns in an urban environment, supported by empirical evidence linking handguns to higher rates of homicide and injury.36 He argued that the District's compelling interests in public safety justify the restriction and that the law is tailored to the problem of handgun violence while leaving rifles and shotguns available for other lawful uses.
Breyer applied interest balancing and found the burden on any self-defense interest proportionate to the District's compelling interest in reducing gun violence. He stressed that empirical data supported the legislature's predictive judgments and that no less restrictive alternative would achieve the same public-safety objectives.
Whether the District of Columbia's requirement that lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device violates the Second Amendment as applied to functional firearms in the home?37
The requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is therefore unconstitutional.38
Yes. The trigger-lock mandate renders firearms inoperable at all times in the home, directly preventing their use for immediate self-defense.39 The statute contains enumerated exceptions for law enforcement and recreational use but none for self-defense, and the unequivocal text precludes reading in such an exception.40 Because the requirement makes functional firearms unavailable when the need for self-defense is most acute, it violates the Second Amendment.41
The District of Columbia's requirement that lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device violates the Second Amendment as applied to functional firearms in the home.
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, And Breyer
Justice Stevens would have sustained the storage requirement because it does not impair militia-related possession and the Amendment does not protect a freestanding right of self-defense.42 He viewed the regulation as consistent with the military purpose of the Second Amendment and noted that the Framers did not intend to limit legislative authority over civilian firearm uses.43 Stevens concluded that the District's law respects the limited scope of the right.44
Stevens argued that the storage rule advances the Amendment's core militia purpose without affecting organized military service. He rejected any judicially created self-defense exception as inconsistent with the text and history and concluded that the District's measure falls within the legislative authority the Amendment preserves.
Joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, And Ginsburg
Justice Breyer would have sustained the storage requirement as a minimal burden on any self-defense interest that is justified by the District's interest in preventing accidental shootings and suicides.45 He emphasized that the law advances compelling public-safety goals and that any self-defense interest must be balanced against the District's strong interest in reducing gun-related deaths and injuries in the home.46
Breyer found the storage rule a reasonable legislative choice supported by data on home firearm accidents. He concluded that the minimal burden on self-defense is proportionate to the District's compelling interest in public safety and that less restrictive alternatives would not achieve the same protective objectives.
Whether the District of Columbia's licensing requirement for carrying a handgun in the home is consistent with the Second Amendment?47
Assuming a license will satisfy the prayer for relief and is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the licensing requirement does not violate the Second Amendment.48
Yes. Heller conceded at oral argument that the licensing law is permissible if not enforced arbitrarily.49 The Court therefore assumes that issuance of a license will satisfy his request and does not address the licensing requirement further, provided Heller is not otherwise disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights.50
The District of Columbia's licensing requirement for carrying a handgun in the home is consistent with the Second Amendment.