District of Columbia v. Heller: An Individual Right

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller^[1], resolving a question that had been debated for over two centuries: whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right or a collective right tied to militia service.

The Holding

In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Scalia, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Court struck down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban and its requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.

Limits of the Right

The Court emphasized that the right is not unlimited. Justice Scalia wrote that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

What Heller Did Not Decide

Because Washington D.C. is a federal enclave, Heller only established that the Second Amendment constrains the federal government. Whether the right also applied to state and local governments was left for a future case. That question was answered two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago^[2].

Impact on Massachusetts

While Heller did not directly apply to Massachusetts (a state, not a federal enclave), it established the constitutional foundation for all subsequent Second Amendment challenges to state firearms laws, including Massachusetts's licensing framework and assault weapons ban.