In the District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, respondent Dick Anthony Heller challenged a law banning the registering of handguns and requiring other guns in the home to be in non-working status. This meant that weapons would have to be disassembled or have trigger locks. He was denied a one-year license for a handgun despite being authorized to carry as a D.C. police officer, so he sued the petitioner, District of Columbia, for violating his Second Amendment rights. The case was dismissed by district court but reversed in the U.S. Court of Appeals (District of Columbia v. Heller, n.d.). It was decided that the 2nd amendment gives law-abiding citizens the right to weapons for self-protection.

The respondent’s argument was that the second amendment offers citizens the right to be able to defend themselves from an attack. They further argued that the general idea behind the Second Amendment when it was created could be likened to the same purpose of self-defense today. They also argued that this right allowed people to have weapons readily available should they be called to war, and the spirit of the amendment could be applied to Heller’s right to have a working handgun in his home. Conversely, the petitioner argued that the literal interpretation of the amendment be supported and not interpreted in an effort to create the idea behind the amendment up-to-date (Buechner & Ernemann, n.d.).

The final Supreme Court ruling was decided by Roberts Court on June 26, 2008, and it was 5 to 4 in favor of Heller. It was decided that “militia” was not the operative word used in the amendment. At the time of the amendment’s creation, militia was any able-bodied person who could be called to war. If they limited it only to official military persons, it would eliminate the protection from the state that was afforded by it initially. They interpreted that the constitution aimed to afford the freedom to have weapons in case there was a confrontation. Therefore, they would also have to be in working order, and not disassembled like the District of Columbia law had dictated (District of Columbia v. Heller, n.d.).

While the District of Columbia laws were strict, the decision by the Supreme Court naming them unconstitutional had large implications for gun ownership across the country. Justice Scalia noted that handgun bans and trigger-locks eliminated the ability to lawfully engage in self-defense. He explained that there were plenty of weapons bans that were constitutional, such as concealed weapons bans or prohibiting felons from owning firearms, but he found D.C.’s regulation to be crossing the line of constitutionality. Due to this decision, D.C. had to change its guns laws. It made gun registration more attainable, labelled certain handguns unsafe that still could not be registered. The ruling was extended in a later Chicago case, meaning that the ruling would apply to all states.

The biggest impact on the lives of Americans that happened because of this case was a recognized modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, which clarifies that one does not have to be a member of an organized militia in order to have firearms (Parents Against Gun Violence, 2013). This was a big victory for gun rights enthusiasts, but the law did leave room for gun restrictions that could still follow, as America is very much divided on the subject. Mass shootings such as the one in Las Vegas cause one side to argue that all guns should be illegal. However, gun proponents say that this restriction will allow only criminals to have weapons, which will take away the ability for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.