Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN News

The Ten Facts You Need to Know About <I>Heller.</I>

Friday, February 8, 2008

On November 20, the Supreme Court agreed to hear one of the most important Second Amendment cases in history. The case is a challenge to Washington, D.C. laws that forbid possession of handguns not registered before 1977; forbid possessing any firearm at home if not unloaded and disassembled or secured by a trigger lock; and forbid carrying a handgun, openly or concealed, without a license-even from room to room in the home.

Briefs by the parties and "friends of the court"-including NRA-will (click Here to read NRA's brief) be filed throughout the winter and spring, and the court will hear arguments in March. Experts anticipate a June decision-and the wisest of those experts know not to make any firm predictions.

The outcome may be uncertain, but the media spin isn't. To help you follow the action as it unfolds, here are the top 10 things you need to know about the case.

1. How the case got here. Shelly Parker and five other Washington, D.C. residents sued to overturn the city's laws that prevent them from using guns in self-defense at home. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the suit, rejecting what it called "the notion that there is an individual right to bear arms separate and apart from service in the Militia." Because there's no right, the court said, the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.

The citizens appealed and got a friendlier reception in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. There, a three-judge panel held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right outside of militia service and that the D.C. laws violate that right.

At the same time, the D.C. Circuit found that only one plaintiff-Dick Heller-could sue, because D.C. had actually denied his application to register a handgun. The full circuit court denied D.C.'s request to review the panel ruling.

The District has now appealed to the Supreme Court-against the wishes of anti-gun groups who fear that a pro-individual rights ruling will threaten gun laws nationwide. Because D.C. filed the appeal, and all of the plaintiffs but Heller were dismissed, the case is now called District of Columbia v. Heller .

2. The Supreme Court's decision in Heller may be limited. The Supreme Court has said that its review of the Court of Appeals decision in Parker will be "limited to the following question: Whether Washington, D.C.'s bans [on handguns, on having guns in operable condition in the home and on carrying guns within the home] 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."

The case doesn't deal with carrying a gun away from home, doesn't seek to overturn D.C.'s firearm registration law and doesn't seek to overturn other laws in D.C. or anywhere else.

3. The individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment goes back to our nation's founding. The District's theory-that the Second Amendment protects a right of individuals to possess firearms only for active duty in a militia-did not exist when the amendment was written, approved by Congress and ratified by the states. Neither did the theory that it protects a so-called "state's right" to have a militia.

Attorney and preeminent Second Amendment historian Stephen Halbrook has found no evidence that anyone associated with drafting, debating and ratifying the Second Amendment ever considered it anything other than a protection of a preexisting individual right to keep and bear arms. As Halbrook has also noted, that view prevailed into the 19th century.

In his 1829 commentaries on the Constitution, Federalist William Rawle wrote that if Congress or a state legislature tried to disarm the people "in any blind pursuit of inordinate power," the Second Amendment "may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

And in 1833, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story declared "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic."

By contrast, D.C.'s "militia duty" theory was not invented until 1905, in the Kansas Supreme Court's decision in City of Salina v. Blaksley, while the "state's right" theory arose in 1943, in the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision in U.S. v. Tot.

4. In U.S. v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court did not, as the District of Columbia claims, consider the Second Amendment to protect only a right to be armed while serving in a militia. And, contrary to what some gun control supporters have claimed, the Court did not consider the amendment to protect a so-called "state's right" to maintain a militia.

Had the court held either of those views, it would have said the Miller defendants had no basis for a Second Amendment claim, because they were individuals with no apparent connection to a militia, and they certainly were not states.

But the court never mentioned it. To the contrary, as the Court of Appeals noted in Parker, the Supreme Court in Miller said that the militia consists of "civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion . . . bearing arms supplied by themselves." (Emphasis added.)

5. U.S. v. Miller contradicts the District's claim that handguns are not "Arms" protected by the Second Amendment. We can't respond much more eloquently than the D.C. Circuit did in Parker:

"[T]he District's claim runs afoul of Miller's discussion of 'Arms.' The Miller court concluded that the defendants, who did not appear in the Supreme Court, provided no showing that short-barreled (or sawed-off) shotguns-banned by federal statute-bore 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.' However, the Court also observed that militiamen were expected to bring their private arms with them when called up for service. Those weapons would be 'of the kind in common use at the time.' There can be no question that most handguns (those in common use) fit that description then and now."

6. The Second Amendment does not create a right out of thin air. It protects a right that existed before the Constitution was written. Opponents of the individual right to arms-and many who parrot them in the media-talk in terms of whether the amendment creates, grants, establishes or confers a right. If they acknowledged that the amendment protects a right that existed before the government did, they would have to admit that the right doesn't belong to government, or to those on duty in a government's militia. Rather, the right belongs to private individuals.

The text of the Second Amendment confirms this. It does not say, "the people shall have a right to keep and bear arms." It says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." (Emphasis added.) The Supreme Court confirmed this point in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), declaring, "This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

7. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep arms, as well as the right to bear arms. One of the most incredible claims being thrown at the Second Amendment today is the Brady Campaign's brand new idea, adopted by the District Court in its Parker decision, that "the right to keep and bear arms" means only "the right to bear arms" when on active duty in a militia. Another equally incredible claim, by anti-gun academic Garry Wills, is that "keep" means "keep up," as in "maintain a militia."

In Parker, the Court of Appeals rejected these ideas. As that court said, "Such outlandish views are likely advanced because the plain meaning of 'keep' strikes a mortal blow to the collective right theory . . . We think 'keep' is a straightforward term that implies ownership or possession of a functioning weapon by an individual for private use." Of course, to "keep" means "at home," precisely what is at issue in Heller.

8. Washington, D.C.'s gun and self-defense bans don't work-and few expected them to work. D.C.'s murder rate had been declining before passage of the handgun ban in 1976. But between 1976 and 1991, it rose 200 percent, while the U.S. murder rate rose only nine percent. And just a week after getting the Supreme Court to take up the Heller case, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty announced the city will spend $1.8 million on new rooftop sensors, to detect shots fired from supposedly banned guns.

Even 30 years ago, few of D.C.'s politicians-even supporters of the bans-put much hope in the laws' effectiveness. Then-Councilman Jerry Moore voted for the ban bill, but admitted he had "no illusions about this law-it won't take guns off the streets."

Police confirmed those suspicions. D.C.'s police chief at the time admitted that less than 0.5 percent of guns seized by police in 1975 were registered. Front-line officers were even more candid; one veteran detective told a reporter, "You're not controlling guns, you're controlling people ... We're not stopping these bums killing each other, us, or committing armed robberies."

9. Even a decision upholding the D.C. laws wouldn't be the end of the story, but the start of new battles in Congress and the state legislatures. America's political process has dealt with mistaken court decisions in the past. In the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that blacks born in the United States couldn't be citizens-even though several states had always treated them as such. It took the Fourteenth Amendment, followed by decades of work in the courts, the Congress and the state legislatures, to erase the Dred Scott ruling.

While a decision in favor of D.C. would encourage anti-gun lawmakers, other politicians would still have to listen to their constituents-and the political fight for gun ownership would only become more intense, with a greater need for grassroots involvement than ever before. When it comes to defending the right to keep and bear arms, NRA has no plans to leave the field.

10. Because this is such a limited case, even a victory won't mean that all gun control laws can be overturned or challenged. A Supreme Court ruling that there is an individual right to arms, and that these three D.C. laws violate that right, would be a milestone for freedom in America. But it wouldn't be the end of the gun control debate. Because the D.C. laws are so extreme, even a strong opinion in this case would establish a floor, not a ceiling, for gun owners' rights.

Other civil rights struggles suggest what could lie ahead. The Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that school desegregation is unconstitutional, but it took over a decade of legal and political battles to enforce that ruling-and litigation on the issue continues today. Likewise, Prof. William Van Alstyne points out that the First Amendment's free speech guarantee, which many take for granted today, was barely recognized at all for America's first 120 years.

In any event, we'll do well to remember the words of Vince Lombardi: "I firmly believe that any man's finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle-victorious."

A Supreme Court ruling that there is an individual right, and that these three D.C. laws violate that right, would be a milestone for freedom in America.

TRENDING NOW
National Reciprocity Bill Nears Goal Line in the House but Needs Your Support to Reach the End Zone

News  

Friday, September 15, 2017

National Reciprocity Bill Nears Goal Line in the House but Needs Your Support to Reach the End Zone

Gun owners received good news this week with the passage of the SHARE Act by the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources (see related story). Meanwhile, progress continued to be made on another NRA legislative ...

Urban Myth: Crime Doesn’t Pay – California City Authorizes Stipends to Gang Members

News  

Friday, September 15, 2017

Urban Myth: Crime Doesn’t Pay – California City Authorizes Stipends to Gang Members

In a special meeting on August 29, the nine-member City Council of Sacramento unanimously agreed to allocate $1.5 million in funding and to move forward with a “gun-violence reduction strategy” that will include cash payments ...

California Legislature Adjourns the 2017 Legislative Session

Saturday, September 16, 2017

California Legislature Adjourns the 2017 Legislative Session

Last night, the California Legislature adjourned the 2017 session.  Three anti-gun bills, AB 7, AB 424 and SB 464, passed the Legislature and will now be considered by Governor Brown.  Contact Governor Brown and urge him ...

House Committee Passes SHARE Act by Wide Margin

Hunting  

News  

Friday, September 15, 2017

House Committee Passes SHARE Act by Wide Margin

As we have reported, this year’s version of the SHARE Act is the most expansive and far-reaching yet. Besides previously-introduced provisions aimed at enhancing opportunities for hunting, fishing, and shooting and broadening access to federal lands ...

NRA Backed SHARE Act Passes Committee

News  

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

NRA Backed SHARE Act Passes Committee

“Today marks an important step in protecting the Second Amendment freedoms of America’s hunters and sportsmen and strengthening our outdoor heritage,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The SHARE Act will cut burdensome red tape that restricts ...

Washington Post’s Resident Anti-Gun Zealot Parades his Ignorance in SHARE Act Column

News  

Second Amendment  

Friday, September 15, 2017

Washington Post’s Resident Anti-Gun Zealot Parades his Ignorance in SHARE Act Column

Dana Milbank is not a serious journalist. A former White House correspondent for the Washington Post, Milbank now writes what can be characterized as a humor column for the paper.

NRA Applauds Reintroduction and Expansion of SHARE Act

News  

Hunting  

Friday, September 8, 2017

NRA Applauds Reintroduction and Expansion of SHARE Act

On Sept. 1, U.S. Congressman Jeff Duncan introduced H.R. 3668, the Sportsman’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act (SHARE Act), a wide-ranging package of legislation aimed at promoting Second Amendment rights and America’s outdoor sporting traditions.

“What Happened”: Clinton Recognizes NRA’s Power, Rewrites History, and Urges Dems to Double-down on Gun Control

News  

Friday, September 15, 2017

“What Happened”: Clinton Recognizes NRA’s Power, Rewrites History, and Urges Dems to Double-down on Gun Control

This week, twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton released her new book, “What Happened,” which chiefly serves to assign blame to the myriad politicians, journalists, organizations, countries, prejudices, and technologies she claims caused her defeat. Gun ...

Wisconsin: Important Concealed Carry Legislation Scheduled for Committee Vote This Week

Sunday, September 17, 2017

Wisconsin: Important Concealed Carry Legislation Scheduled for Committee Vote This Week

This Tuesday, September 19, Senate Bill 169 is scheduled for a vote during the executive session in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  SB 169 would allow for the concealed carry of a firearm without a concealed carry license ...

Bloomberg Spending Millions To Elect Anti-Gun Virginia Governor

News  

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Bloomberg Spending Millions To Elect Anti-Gun Virginia Governor

Billionaire anti-gunner Michael Bloomberg is at it again, pledging to spend $1 million through his gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety in an attempt to impact Virginia’s upcoming elections for governor and attorney general.

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -
NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.