June 30, 2008
By Andrew M. Grossman and Andrew Grossman
"Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of
Second Amendment rights [e.g., a felon], the District must permit
him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry
it in his home." So ordered the Supreme Court this morning.
When the High Court decides matters of great national importance
and interest, it is too easy to forget that its decisions concern
people, who become somewhat disembodied, in the public mind, from
the cases that bear their names.
We do not yet know how Heller will play out; many
questions are left unanswered by the Court's decision. But we can
look to Dick Heller for an indication of what's to come. And it
looks very good.
Dick Heller is a special police offer in the District of
Columbia who patrols the Federal Judicial Center. He is permitted
to carry a handgun while on duty during the day and wished to
possess one at his home to defend himself and his family. He
applied for a permit, but was denied: the city's law bars the
registration of handguns to nearly all private citizens.
So he sued, challenging the District's handgun ban and its
requirement that all guns be stored in inoperable condition. And
now it's final: Dick Heller has an individual right to keep and
bear arms in his home, a right that is shared by all Americans.
The 64-page majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia decimates
the gun control crowd's contention that the Second Amendment
guarantees only a collective right, having to do with states'
militias, making it all but irrelevant in the modern age.
The Amendment reads as follows: "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."
The key question, unanswered by the Court until this day, was
the affect of the Amendment's "prefatory clause" ("A well regulated
Militia being necessary to the security of a free State") on its
operative text ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
shall not be infringed"). In other words, does reference to
"militia" somehow change the right to bear arms into one that is
only available for the purposes of arming and preparing state
militias, restricting it from what would otherwise appear to be a
right guaranteed to every law abiding, able-minded citizen?
The Court's answer could not be clearer or more correct: It does
not. In a tour-de-force of originalist interpretation and judicial
restraint, Scalia's opinion traces the historical meaning of each
phrase of the Amendment's text.
A "right of the people," he demonstrates, is a term of art that,
as used elsewhere in the Constitution, encompasses all the people,
not just those eligible for militia duty. Moreover, it refers to
rights that are held by the individual each time it is used, such
as the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures and
the right to assemble and to petition the government. Reading it
otherwise would make mincemeat of the settled understanding of
these constitutional commandments. Thus, writes Scalia, the very
first words of the operative clause strongly indicate that this is
an individual right, as well.
"Keep and bear arms" are, among those who debate such things,
also the source of some contention. To "bear arms," argue gun
control advocates, is solely to wield arms in a military unit or,
even more narrowly, to wage war. But these readings are strained,
the Court correctly observes, as the text more readily yields the
reading that is plain today to you or I: to have and to use them in
any context, whether in the military or in the home.
So what then of the so-called "prefatory clause"? The "militia,"
at the time, consisted of all able-bodied men, and that it was
"well-regulated" meant only that it be disciplined and trained.
That such a body would be "essential to the security of a free
state" was self-evident to the Framer's generation -- how better to
repel invaders or resist tyranny?
But is it solely for the purpose of doing such things --
defending the states and the country in well-regulated bodies --
that the right to keep and bear arms becomes operative? And if not,
why have the prefatory clause at all? Actually, writes Scalia, its
presence makes good sense:
It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding
generation knew and that we have described above. That history
showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of
all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply
by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia or
standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had
occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have
arms in the English Bill of Rights.
That is, the individual right to keep and bear arms pre-existed
the Constitution, so the Framer's dilemma was not whether to create
it but whether to include it in the federal Bill of Rights. They
chose to do so for a reason: to diminish "the threat that the new
Federal Government would destroy the citizens' militia by taking
away their arms." That is not, however, the full extent of the
right, just the chief reason for its clear presence in the
Early commentary on the Second Amendment bears out the Court's
reading. Framing-era scholars and jurists were in strong agreement
-- in the rare cases that the issue arose at all, it being
unthinkable at the time to significantly abridge the right to bear
arms -- that the right was an individual one. Consider, for
example, Justice Story's Commentaries on the Constitution, which
equates the Amendment with an English right guaranteeing subjects'
ability to wield suitable arms for their own defense. This is
typical. It was only in later years that the meaning of the
Amendment was thrown into doubt.
And that doubt is now gone.
That each individual has a right under the Constitution to keep
and bear arms, however, is really only the starting point of
discussion, and it is what comes after that assertion that caused
so many gun-rights advocates great anxiety in the years that Heller
has worked its way through the courts. No right, of course, is
unlimited, but an individual right that the government may abridge
for any reason is hollow.
Probably to avoid a fractured opinion -- which would have
weakened the case's precedential effect -- Scalia ducked the
question of exactly how courts ought to weigh government policies
that abridge the right to bear arms, but that is not to say the
Court's opinion is silent on the issue -- far from it.
Rather, it is firm, loud, and clear: "Under any of the standards
of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional
rights, banning from the home 'the most preferred firearm in the
nation to keep and use for protection of one's home and family,'
would fail constitutional muster." The same holds true for D.C.'s
requirement that guns kept in the home be disassembled or made
inoperative by trigger locks at all times. These are strong
conclusions, ones that counsel great optimism that this will not be
a hollow right. Laws that would prevent Americans from protecting
their homes using the weapons most appropriate to that task will
not past muster.
Certain limitations on the right are also permissible according
to the same reasoning. Thus the opinion is careful to state that it
should not "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 certain licensing
Between those two extremes, however, lies a great gray area of
uncertainty. Looming large but confined to a mere footnote is the
question of whether the Second Amendment is "incorporated" against
the states at all, as opposed to the federal District. An 1875
decision held that it was not, but at the time, neither was First
Amendment. The continuing vitality of that view is doubtful, but
that it is likely to be tested in the years ahead, perhaps
concerning Chicago's handgun laws. Probably any court denying the
incorporation of the Second Amendment would be pilloried, and
Another uncertainty is what comes next for the residents of
D.C., this author among them. The city is plagued by crime, and
this summer has witnessed several weekends of record violence,
particularly in the Northeast quadrant of the city. The evidence is
clear that the gun ban never worked, and the Court was clear that
it is unconstitutional, but the District government will
doubtlessly resist deigning to allow its law-abiding citizens --
i.e., those District residents who are not armed to the teeth --
our full constitutional rights. The U.S. Congress has the
opportunity, if it so wishes, to step in and make the District do
what is required and just on a reasonable schedule.
And perhaps the greatest uncertainty is the status of much of
state and federal law concerning the licensure of firearms and the
rules concerning their transportation and concealment. The Court's
opinion offers no answers, and even with a standard of review,
questions of this nature would be difficult to predict. Only time
But that is not a bad thing. For years, government officials at
all levels have considered the Second Amendment as a dead letter
and acted accordingly, and it will take time for the vast cannons
of laws that they have built to be disassembled, piece by piece,
until all that remains -- those laws that do not unjustifiably
infringe on the right of law-abiding individuals to protect
themselves and their families -- satisfies the Constitution's
Today, however, was the big day, and the rest is just details.
Dick Heller will, sooner or later, get his license, and all
Americans can rest content knowing that their sometimes-pushy
cities and states are now (probably) powerless to take away their
right to defend their homes. It is a sweet day for freedom.
Andrew Grossman is
a Senior Legal Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
First appeared in Human Events
“Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights [e.g., a felon], the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in his home.” So ordered the Supreme Court this morning.
Andrew M. Grossman
Read More >>
Request an interview >>
Please complete the following form to request an interview with a Heritage expert.
Please note that all fields must be completed.
Read More >>
Heritage's daily Morning Bell e-mail keeps you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.
The subscription is free and delivers you the latest conservative policy perspectives on the news each weekday--straight from Heritage experts.
The Morning Bell is your daily wake-up call offering a fresh, conservative analysis of the news.
More than 200,000 Americans rely on Heritage's Morning Bell to stay up to date on the policy battles that affect them.
Rush Limbaugh says "The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell is just terrific!"
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."
Sign up to start your free subscription today!
The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.
Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More
© 2013, The Heritage Foundation Conservative policy research since 1973