District of Columbia et al. v. Heller

• Author: Greg S. Weaver
• Date: 01 February 2009
• Published date: 01 February 2009
• DOI: 10.1177/1043986208329803
• Subject Matter: Articles

119

Journal of Contemporary

Criminal Justice

Volume25 Number 1

February 2009 119-122

© 2009 Sage Publications

10.1177/1043986208329803

http://ccj.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

District of Columbia et al.

v. Heller

Another Round in the Debate

Over Gun Control

Greg S. Weaver

Auburn University, Alabama

In a 5-4 decision on June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of theUnited States identified

circumstances underwhich the SecondAmendment to the Constitution allows for an

individual tolawfully possess a handgun. In the majority opinion of the Court, Justice

Scalia stated, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a

firearm and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense

within the home” (Supreme Court of the United States, 2008, p. 1). This potentially

landmark decision addresses (at least in part) the longstanding question over whether

the right to bear arms mentioned in the Second Amendment applies to individuals or

whether it authorizes states to arm militias.

More specifically, the Heller decision overturned the 1976 ban on handguns in

the District of Columbia, which prohibited the possession of handguns, prohibited

their registration, and invalidated the requirement that other firearms (e.g., rifles

and shotguns) stored within the home must be (a) unloaded and (b) disassembled

or equipped with a trigger locking device (Supreme Court of the United States,

2008). No doubt, the potential implications of the Heller case will result in even

more debate over an issue that Wellford, Pepper, and Petrie (2004) suggest is

already one of the most controversial subjects in the United States. The primary

objective of this essay is to show how the case reflects the extremely complex issue

of guns and policies surrounding their ownership and use.

In some ways, the circumstances surrounding the case seem straightforward

and unremarkable. The petitioner in the case is a law enforcement/security offi-

cer who applied for a permit to store a handgun in his home. This request was

denied, and he subsequently filed suit against the District of Columbia (Supreme

Court of the United States, 2008). However, a December 2007 article in the New

York Times gives an account of how the petitioner was actually selected by a

group of attorneys who intended to test the constitutionality of the ban in relation

to the Second Amendment. According to one of the lead attorneys for the case,

his inter est was mo tivated by the desire to defend libertarian principles (Liptak,

2007). These specific circumstances associated with the case beg the question of

why the groupwould pursue thismatter (as opposedto a number of other possibilities),