After Heller vs. District of Columbia: States’ Rights in a Representative Form of Government and Gun Control

Larry Gould, an Emeritus Professor in the department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at NAU is presenting “After Heller vs. District of Columbia: States’ Rights in a Representative Form of Government and Gun Control“.

The Supreme Court held, in Heller, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful use, such as self-defense, in the home. Accordingly, it struck down as unconstitutional provisions of a D.C. law that (1) effectively banned possession of handguns by non-law enforcement officials and (2) required lawfully owned firearms to be kept unloaded, disassembled, or locked when not located at a business place or being used for lawful recreational activities. According to the Court, the ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of ‘arms’ that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Similarly, the requirement that any firearm in a home be disassembled or locked made “it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” In writing the majority opinion, Justice Scalia said: The Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful. These include laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” (5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents. Given this statement it appears that the Court is leaving many aspects of gun control to the States.