For over two centuries, the Second Amendment to the Constitution has fought for recognition as providing individual Americans with the right to bear arms, rather than merely as a collective right protecting the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” for the purpose of creating militias. On June 26, 2008, District of Columbia v. Heller – a landmark case that tested the scope of the Second Amendment – was decided in historic fashion.
In the ruling, a 5-4 majority for the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a District of Columbia ( DC ) handgun-ban law, effectively ruling the DC handgun ban unconstitutional and affirming the individual’s right to bear arms in accordance with the Second Amendment. It was the first time in U.S. history that the Supreme Court had ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms.
The decision in Heller revolutionized the gun control debate in America, catalyzing numerous changes to state and federal laws. Yet the ruling itself remains somewhat in limbo. Though it found a ban on handguns in the home unconstitutional, it also held that states and the federal government can impose restrictions on firearms ownership, so long as they do not impede individuals’ rights to bear arms.
In the wake of the Heller ruling, many states have taken action to either weaken existing gun laws, allowing for greater access to firearms, or to strengthen existing restrictions and regulations on gun ownership. In the years since the decision, the Second Amendment itself has been the subject of often-heated debate. While proponents of gun rights view the Heller decision as a triumph for their cause, opponents have argued that it created a blanket justification for relaxed gun regulations.
For all of the excitement that the Heller ruling has generated, its significance should not be overstated. Ultimately, the case did not settle all of the disputes surrounding the Second Amendment; instead, it required that such debates will continue and that any decision by either state or federal governments regarding gun ownership will have to be weighed carefully against the precedent set by the Supreme Court.