Heller V. Chicago Case

604 Words3 Pages
Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Once Heller received his denial, he took to the District of Columbia stating that they violated his Second Amendment right to keep a functional firearm in his home without a license. The district court dismissed the complaint. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep firearms in the home for the purpose of self-defense, and the District of Columbia’s requirement that firearms kept in the home be nonfunctional violated that right. The ban on…show more content…
The gun market and black market has been around for years and the way states was trying to handle gun control went against individuals 2nd amendment. Let us be aware that just because it states in the constitution that we are allowed to bear arms not everyone have a legal spectrum to do so. The Ban D.C. try to implement did not have much of an argument when it reach to the Supreme Court. The decision of District of Columbia v. Heller made it possible for cases like McDonald v. Chicago (State Case) to bring forth an argument in which applying the 2ND amendment to state…show more content…
Chicago (State Case) 5-4 under the opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that rights that are "fundamental to the Nation 's scheme of ordered liberty" or that are "deeply rooted in this Nation 's history and tradition" are appropriately applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court recognized in Heller that the right to self-defense was one such "fundamental" and "deeply rooted" right (McDonald v. Chicago. (n.d.)). The previous cases are what gives people the right to bear arms in the United States with the injunction of the constitution. There are laws to protect and make it legal by obtaining a license in the state in which an individuals is purchasing a gun but that do not stop the black market. Gun control laws and violence with in different states is a clear view that the gun control laws/bans are not really helpful in today’s society. I feel that the law did not abolish the black market of gun purchases therefore people are still purchasing guns illegally for what the state ban in the first place. Now for those individuals who have no criminal background and obtain a gun for recreational purposes (hunting or protection/depends on state laws) within that state then it is
Open Document