Columbia Vs Heller

Words: 632
Pages: 3

In the United States Constitution it states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (Amendment 2). Our right is guaranteed, but people who are in favor of gun control claim it only applies to the military, not everyone. In 2008, the court case District of Columbia v. Heller surfaced after Dick Heller was refused by the District to register his handgun. Heller however won the case and was allowed to register it. The reasoning was that "The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms" (District of Columbia v. Heller – Case Brief Summary). This was determined by the Supreme Court, which still plays a key role in the debate today. …show more content…
The court case McDonald v. Chicago was filed right after D.C. v. Heller; and the Supreme Court ruled its opinion that "The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller" (Justice Alito). As said by Connor Higgins, "If the Fourteenth Amendment dictates equal application of the law, and if we are a nation of laws, then all gun laws passed by the United States Congress as well as subsequent legislation passed by states and counties should apply to militia as well." Seen through these two cases, both verdicts lead back to the Constitution and how our gun rights should not be meddled with, all backed by the Supreme