1. The District of Columbia v. Heller by: Brianna apodaca

2. District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller
Case was Argued March 18, 2008 and Decided June 26, 2008

3. Plaintiffs side
During 2002, Robert A. Levy and Clark M. Neily III began plaintiffs over a Second  Amendment lawsuit. Although he had never owned a gun, he had an interest in the subject and wanted to model the strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had led the challenges that reversed school segregation. They planned to use a group that was diverse in conditions of gender, race, economic  background, and age, they selected six plaintiffs in their mid-20s to  early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black.

4. Each persons story was….
Shelly Parker – a software designer and a former nurse who had been trying to liberate her neighborhood of drugs. Parker is a single woman whose life had been threatened on numerous occasions by drug  dealers who had tried to break into her house countless times.
Tom G. Palmer – a colleague of Robert A. Levy , who is gay, defended himself with a 9mm handgun in While  walking with a friend in San Jose, California, he was approached by a  gang of about 20 young men who used profane language regarding his sexual orientation and threatened his life. When he took his gun out, the men fled. Palmer believes that the handgun saved his life.

5. Gillian St. Lawrence – a mortgage broker who lives in the Georgetown ,who owns several legally registered long guns  which she uses for recreation It had  taken St. Lawrence two years to complete the registration process. She wanted to be able to use these guns to defend herself in her home and to be able to register a handgun.
Tracey Ambeau (now Tracey Hanson) – an employee of the U.S.  Department of Agriculture. Originally from St. Gabriel, Louisiana, she  lives in the Adams Morgan neighborhood with her husband. They live in a high-crime  neighborhood near Union Station in. She grew up around guns and  wanted one to defend her home.
George Lyon – a communications lawyer who had contacted  the National Rifle Association about filing a lawsuit to challenge the  D.C. gun laws. Lyon held D.C. licenses for a shotgun and a rifle, but  wanted to have a handgun in his home.

6. Dick Heller – a licensed special police officer for the District of  Columbia. For his job, Heller carried a gun in federal office  buildings, but was not allowed to have one in his home. Heller had  lived in southeast D.C. near the Kentucky Courts public housing  complex since 1970 and had seen the neighborhood "transformed from a  child-friendly welfare complex to a drug haven". Heller had also  approached the National Rifle Association about a lawsuit to reverse the D.C. gun ban, but the NRA declined. Previous federal case pertaining to the question of an individual's right to bear arms.

7. Defendant Petition for Rehearing
During April 2007, the District and Mayor Adrian Fenty petitioned for  rehearing en banc, arguing that the ruling creates jurisdictional conflict. On May 8, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the request to rehear the case, by a 6–4 vote. The defendants petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case. The plaintiffs did not oppose but, in fact, welcomed the  petition. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on November 20,  The court restructured the question to be: The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the  following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code violate the Second Amendment  rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated  militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private  use in their homes? This addressed the Second Amendment.

8. Decision
The Supreme Court held:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm not with service in a militia, and to use that arm for  traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.  (a) The Amendment’ announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative  clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate an individuals right to keep and bear arms. (b) The Court’s interpretation of  the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically  capable of acting in common defense. The  Anti federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the  people in order to disable citizens’ militia, enabling a standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to the right of individuals  to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would  be preserved. (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by arm bearing  rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed  the Second Amendment. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that referred to an individual right to bear arms. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and  legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late  19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s  interpretation. the individual-rights  interpretation. United States v. Miller, does not  limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather  limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by  the militia, those in common use for lawful purposes.

9. (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It  is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever   prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding  prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally  ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions  and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding  that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the  time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. (3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to  self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s 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. Under any of the standards of the Court has applied to constitutional rights, this prohibition in the place where the importance of the lawful defense  of self, family, and property is most acute would fail  constitutional muster. Similarly, 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 hence unconstitutional. Because Heller began an oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not  enforced the Court assumes that a  license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising  Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

10. Ruling Impacts
The D.C. government has indicated it will continue to prevent firearms dealers from operating and selling to  citizens residing in the District, meaning it will continue to be difficult for residents to legally purchase guns in the District. The District enacted new firearm restrictions specifically three new provisions: (1) the firearms registration procedures; (2) the prohibition on assault  weapons; and (3) the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding  devices. Dick Heller's application to register his semi-automatic pistol was  rejected because the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to  the District's interpretation, all bottom-loading guns, including magazine fed non assault style rifles, are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.