District arms (Oyez). The outcome of the

District of Columbia v HellerCase name: District of Columbia v HellerCase number: 554 US. 570The Facts:The case, DC V Heller, was heard out in 2008 by the supreme court. This case originally started by a man known as Heller who wanted to legally own a working firearm at home for self defense purposes. He applied for a handgun, but his application was denied (LII). Heller sued DC, and wanted justice against the right to bear arms . Heller said that the District of Columbia was violating the second amendment, the right to bear arms (Oyez). The outcome of the original case resulted in (5-4) “guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home (britannica).” Antonin Scalia, a member of the supreme court who supported Heller, argued that the operative clause of the amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” Scalia argues that DC is violating the second amendment in the English Bill of Rights (1689 – britannica). The Law:This Supreme Court case addresses the second amendment of the constitution as it relates to bearing arms.The 2nd amendment says that all individuals are allowed to legally own a gun:        “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.” This case relates to the 2nd amendment because it is all about the right to bear arms. Heller requested for a handgun, but the District denied him. This case is heavily based on the second amendment, since the District is violating the second amendment. The second amendment gives individuals a right to own a gun. The Question:The Supreme Court had to answer the following question regarding the case, DC V Heller: “Do the provisions of the District of Columbia Code that restrict the licensing of handguns and require licensed firearms kept in the home to be kept nonfunctional violate the Second Amendment?” (Oyez). The supreme court needs to answer if the District’s restrictions are violating the second amendment. Arguments:1. AppellantThe side that brought the case to the Supreme Court is known as the Appellant. This side was Heller and they argued that the District of Columbia was violating the second amendment. He explained that they were violating the second amendment by not allowing him to own a functioning firearm with a license. The court says, that a “militia” is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment (Oyez). The amendment doesn’t limit the right to bear arms to those in the military, since it was made to protect the people’s rights. Antonin Scalia agreed with Heller, he said to read the second amendment to only allow military force to carry a working firearm would be violating the purpose of the English Bill of Rights. 2. RespondentThe side that defends the case to the Supreme Court is called the Respondent. This side was The District of Columbia, and they argued that the second amendment does not create an unlimited right to possess a functioning firearm for self-defense purposes. Justice Stevens (Find Law) argues that the amendment only states that the those may only own a gun if serving the military. Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer agreed. They argued that the the second amendment protects militia-related but nothing about self-defense related interests. Opinion of the Court:The Justice who authored the Majority Opinion was Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. Scalia argued that the term “militia” does not restrict the right to own a firearm to just governed military citizens. He said that the purpose of the English BIll of Rights is to protect the citizens, not just military based citizens (Oyez). Scalia said that the second amendment should be read as to allow citizens to have the right to legally own and carry around a working firearm. The following Justices also agreed with the Majority Opinion: Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito.The Justice who authored the Dissenting Opinion was Justice John Paul Stevens. He said that the second amendment does not create an unlimited right to possess guns for self defense purposes.  (Oyez). The site, Oyez said: “Justice Stevens also notes that “the people” does not enlarge the protected group beyond the context of service in a state-regulated militia. This reading is in line with legal writing of the time that contextualizes the Amendment in relation to state militias and post-enactment legislative history (Oyez).” The following Justices also agreed with the Dissenting Opinion: Stevens, Stouter, Ginsburg, Breyer. Justice Breyer also wrote a separate dissent in which he argued that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests, and it does not provide absolute protection from government intervention in these interests. (Oyez) OutcomeThe final decision was made after a 5-4 vote.  The outcome of the case reflected the opinion of the majority and “Scalia asserts in the Court’s opinion that the “people” to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same “people” who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection” (Britannica)Response to Court DecisionsThe public’s response to the case was shocked and relieved. The public was glad that the second amendment was protected. The public also was happy that their freedom and individualism was recognized. Knowing that they can carry a gun for protection, puts their mind at ease (HuffingtonPost – 2008).Impact on Decisions, Citizens and LawsSome other court cases that relate to the District of Columbia v Heller case included, McDonald v Chicago, United States v Miller, Presser v. Illinois, Voisine v. United States, and Peruta v. San Diego. The decision didn’t necessarily change the law, rather it enforced the second amendment. It gave the citizens the permission to legally own a firearm for self defense and for other lawfully uses. After the Supreme Court decided that citizens may have the right to legally apply for a gun, and have the ability to legally carry a firearm around.The Decision TodayThe court decision of the case, District of Columbia v Heller, still stands with citizens today. The amount of guns sold / applied for since 1998 to 2012 is about 155,577,260 (Business Insider – 2012) This case still affects citizens since without the ability to apply for a gun, there would be more violence and more deaths yearly. With the right to bear arms citizens are able to defend themselves and family from criminals and others. Personal OpinionMy opinion regarding the district of columbia v heller is that the court made the right decision  because they were violating the second amendment. The District should not have denied the case in the first place, since that is violating the second amendment. I believe that all citizens should be able to carry a concealed firearm for defense and lawful purposes. Citizens need to be able to defend themselves when others attack them or even if the government turns against them.Impact on Your LifeThis case may not seem to be affecting my life, but it definitely does. See without the decision the court made citizens could not apply for a concealed gun, there would be more deaths along with more possible break ins / robberies. Without the ability to own a working firearm citizens would be defenseless against situations that involve violence. The world we live in would most likely be more violent due to the fact that less people would be defenseless. This has an impact on my life since if the world was even more dangerous than it already is, my parents wouldn’t let me go anywhere. Everyone might be more cautious of their surroundings. Without a self defense mechanism, we are an easy target.