against the court’s decision to uphold the ruling inDistrict of Columbia V. Heller (2008)
English 102.644
December 13,2013
The case District of Columbia V. Heller (2008) settled questions surrounded the Second Amendment and gun control laws. The District of Columbia passed legislation banning the registration of handguns, requiring licenses for all pistols mandating that all legal firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled or on a trigger lock and could only be obtained with a license issued by the Chief of police. 1 A D.C. special policeman, Heller, applied to register his handgun and requested to keep it at home, however, his request was denied resulting in a lawsuit by the plaintiff. The Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals then held that the Second Amendment applied to only militias. The U.S. Court of Appeals then held that the Second Amendment protects the plaintiffs right and the right of any individual to posses a firearm like that of the plaintiffs. The Respondents then urged the court to review the case in order clearly define the relationship between federal gun control laws and the second amendment.2 The Supreme Court granted certiorari and a 5-4 decision was made in favor of the plaintiff. The court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to posses a firearm unconnected with militia service in a militia service in a militia and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. 3 In light of a recent series of high court decisions that directly challenge or conflict with the District of Columbia v. Heller case decision, petitioners request the Supreme Court to review its decision. This document will outline my reasoning for voting against the court’s decision to uphold the ruling.
Justice Antonin E. Scalia delivered the majority opinion of the case, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). Scalia takes the judicial philosophy of a textualist and stresses that the Second Amendment conferred an individuals right to keep and bear arms on the basis of both text and history. Scalia divides the Second
December 13,2013
The case District of Columbia V. Heller (2008) settled questions surrounded the Second Amendment and gun control laws. The District of Columbia passed legislation banning the registration of handguns, requiring licenses for all pistols mandating that all legal firearms be kept unloaded, disassembled or on a trigger lock and could only be obtained with a license issued by the Chief of police. 1 A D.C. special policeman, Heller, applied to register his handgun and requested to keep it at home, however, his request was denied resulting in a lawsuit by the plaintiff. The Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals then held that the Second Amendment applied to only militias. The U.S. Court of Appeals then held that the Second Amendment protects the plaintiffs right and the right of any individual to posses a firearm like that of the plaintiffs. The Respondents then urged the court to review the case in order clearly define the relationship between federal gun control laws and the second amendment.2 The Supreme Court granted certiorari and a 5-4 decision was made in favor of the plaintiff. The court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to posses a firearm unconnected with militia service in a militia service in a militia and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. 3 In light of a recent series of high court decisions that directly challenge or conflict with the District of Columbia v. Heller case decision, petitioners request the Supreme Court to review its decision. This document will outline my reasoning for voting against the court’s decision to uphold the ruling.
Justice Antonin E. Scalia delivered the majority opinion of the case, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). Scalia takes the judicial philosophy of a textualist and stresses that the Second Amendment conferred an individuals right to keep and bear arms on the basis of both text and history. Scalia divides the Second