District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
District of Columbia v. Heller is the modern starting point for Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to possess firearms, unconnected with service in a militia, for lawful purposes such as self-defense in the home, and, if so, do the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that firearms in the home be kept inoperable violate that right?
The Second Amendment's operative clause—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—protects an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation, most notably the right to keep a functional handgun in the home for self-defense. The prefatory clause—"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"—announces a purpose but does not limit or expand the operative protection. While the right is not unlimited and allows for longstanding and presumptively lawful regulatory measures (e.g., prohibitions on possession by felons and the mentally ill, bans on carrying in sensitive places, and conditions on commercial sales), a categorical ban on handguns commonly used for lawful purposes, and a requirement that firearms in the home be inoperable for immediate self-defense, violate the Second Amendment.
Yes. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense within the home. The District of Columbia's ban on the possession of handguns and its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional violate that right. The judgment of the D.C. Circuit was affirmed.
Heller is the foundational case recognizing an individual Second Amendment right, reshaping federal constitutional law. It established that governments may not enact categorical bans on firearms commonly chosen for lawful purposes, and they may not render firearms inoperable where self-defense interests are at their zenith—the home. For students, Heller is essential for understanding constitutional interpretation (textualism and originalism), the function of prefatory versus operative clauses, and the interaction between rights and regulatory carve-outs. It set the stage for McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), which incorporated the right against the states, and influenced New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (2022), which adopted a text-and-history framework eschewing means-end scrutiny. Heller also introduces key concepts—"common use" and the limits on "dangerous and unusual" weapons—that continue to guide courts evaluating firearm regulations.