The full opinion is
here.
Some of the holdings:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual
right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,
and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as
self-defense within the home.... The "militia" comprised all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The
Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the
people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a
politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response
was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of
individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens'
militia would be preserved.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not
unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon
whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For
example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the
Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not 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 laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding
that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the
time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the
carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied
to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total
ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on
an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for
the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of
scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights,
this prohibition -- in the place where the importance of the lawful
defense of self, family, and property is most acute -- would fail
constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful
firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock
makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful
purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because
Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is
permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the
Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and
does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not
disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District
must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a
license to carry it in the home.
topics:
Constitution, Law
