District of Columbia v. Heller Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► www.quimbee.co...
District of Columbia v. Heller | [554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Hoping to reduce violent crime in the city, the Washington D.C. city counsel passed the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, which effectively banned individual gun ownership in the District. The Act generally prohibited D.C. residents from possessing handguns, but made some exceptions for police officers and security guards. The Act also prohibited residents from keeping firearms in their homes without licenses, and required that any licensed firearm kept in the home either be unloaded and disassembled, or fitted with a trigger lock.
Dick Heller, worked as a special police officer in Washington, D.C. As part of his employment, he was allowed to carry a handgun while at work. Wanting to keep a handgun in his home after hours, he applied for a license to do so. The District of Columbia denied Heller’s application.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here www.quimbee.co...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.co...
Have Questions about this Case?
Submit your questions and get answers from real attorney here: www.quimbee.co...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our KZbin Channel ► www.youtube.co...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.co...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

[@JesusFernandez-ql5nz]

Thanks so much for helping me on my homework.

[@madisonrichardson8069]

Tony Fernandez the only reason I looked this up was for my homework 😂

[@YDfC21]

I never knew heller was an active police officer wow. They trusted him while on duty but not while at home.

[@nunyuhbusiness9016]

How can anyone say the 2nd amendment isn't absolute when "shall not be infringed" is included in the amendment?

[@OsannaInExcelsis]

Well, as it was explained to me by several involved in law, a State (let alone the Federal Government) cannot institute an outright ban as long as the 2nd Amendment stands, but they can regulate to a degree provided, again, an outright ban is not instituted. The basis for this was that even during the period when this was ratified, there were certain laws that did regulate how one could brandish their arms...typically they were "social laws" that stated one was not to outright brandish their arms in public in an aggressive manner for no reason. Now, of course, at this point it's a balancing act between a reasonable regulation (such as I think most would agree that felons and the mentally ill shouldn't have one) and an indirectly subversive one.

[@14s0cc3r14]

So we can have private nuclear arms?

[@wildsmooth9201]

The first amendment is also not absolute. Free speech is limited if you harm or threaten someone with words. The 2nd is limited to the kinds of weapons you can own, how you purchase them and how you use them. This was how Clinton got around the law however it created a red wave of Republican domination for the next 8 years.

[@oNTiger]

Ok do you want to legalize automatic weapons, tanks, and grenade launchers, and allow known criminals to have guns You see that makes no constitutional sense

[@BlGGESTBROTHER]

Why not? Why is it OK for governments to have such weapons, but not civilians? If your argument is that they are too dangerous, then governments shouldn't have them either; especially when you consider that governments are really just a collection of individuals.

[@Ricky-zf9cv]

thank u 4 carrying my presentation

[@SeraphsWitness]

I appreciate that non-partisan look at the case. That said, I'm about to get partisan. Banning a man from having a handgun in his own home is patently insane.

[@rohanmathilagath2537]

Maybe in the United States but in most countries having a gun in your home would be insane.

[@SeraphsWitness]

@@rohanmathilagath2537 other countries are ripe for the plucking then. No guns is a fine idea, provided you can presume on the benevolence of your government into the deep future. That would be an ignorant assumption however. This is why almost no home robberies in America take place when the occupant is home.

[@hatchetwound666]

@@rohanmathilagath2537 glad I don't live in any of those shithole countries

[@gaguy1967]

And the liberal justices defense of that in their opinion is insane

[@exposeevil5492]

​@@rohanmathilagath2537Where? Cause other countries allow it. You are obviously mind controlled and probably a pee do file

[@collinhennessy1521]

The State of NY's handgun permit system violates the 2nd Amendment.

[@zacharybrand8145]

NY's Safe Act violates the 2nd Amendment!

[@Nicholascoola]

I agree

[@AdamSmith-gs2dv]

All gun control is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[@fidjet]

Sue them! I’ll join that class action. 💜💚🇺🇸🥊💪🧠

[@chinavirus4436]

The court just took up this exact case bro, it’ll be decided on soon.

[@Anon54387]

There is already an error before the 2 minute mark. The right wasn't created by the amendment. This would be abundantly clear if they'd payed attention to the oral arguments in Heller. One justice, Scalia if I recall, specifically mentioned that the 2nd Amendment speaks of the right as though it already exists.

[@emmittmatthews8636]

Absolutely correct. The 9th states "other rights RETAINED by the people" as well. Hamilton in Federalist 84 stated "in creating our own Constitution, we surrendered nothing." (Paraphrased) The right to keep and bear arms also goes back to at least 1688. It is a "right OF the people".

[@FishyNipples]

"Shall not be infringed."

[@arabicriflegaming8871]

Thanks this assignment is due In 2 hours

[@chrishollis2885]

Hey, same 😅

[@Kzummo]

One vote away from tearing apart the 2nd amendment. It could have ended in 2008.

[@wkhristafer]

How

[@Kzummo]

@@wkhristafer Read the goddamn court case it's literally central to the understanding that civilian gun ownership is lawful outside of militias which is often translated to law enforcement

[@wkhristafer]

@@Kzummo umok

[@fireiron369]

How many people have been shot dead since 2008 I wonder

[@Kzummo]

@@fireiron369 I wonder how many people saved their lives by shooting back since 2008

[@victorbruce5772]

In the Heller decision, the court clearly says the 1934 NFA Nation Firearms Act, might be unconstitutional, but is not part of the present Heller case, and has not been challenged. Why has it been challeged.

[@stormscloak5363]

thank you for helping me out on my project

[@nERVEcenter117]

Breyer's dissent is ridiculous. If rights are not guaranteed and can be violated as suits the interest of the state for any reason given, then we have none. This defeats the point of rights entirely. He is an affront to the title of Supreme Court Justice.

[@mattw7057]

@Zachary Combs Unfortunately, many Americans want to be slaves for the government and hate our freedoms.

[@supermatx]

Hi, why don't you check the definition of 'strict scrutiny'?

[@exposeevil5492]

Two national governments pal! Act of 1871 created a new government that is running United States! Not the same as the states of the union.

[@emmittmatthews8636]

​@@supermatx???

[@chainmail5886]

0:59 That judge be like, HOW DARE YOU!

[@sinjin6219]

From the District of Columbia v. Heller, Opinion of the court, pages 55 and 56: “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service-M-16 rifles and the like-may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Most people argue that he is saying that it’s OK to ban certain types of military service guns, but that is not the case. Here is what I think he was saying: If we ban any military-type gun, then we are losing the connection between the primary purpose of the amendment and the prohibition against infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Here is what he stated in the Syllabus: “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. Pp. 2-53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. 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. Pp. 22-28.” He does continue on in the Syllabus to say that it is not an unlimited right and gives examples: “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. Pp. 54-56.” This limiting of a right I do disagree with. A restricted right is no longer a right but becomes a privilege, although suspending or restricting the rights of the mentally ill is probably a good idea; if someone is not in their right mind, then they can’t be trusted to fulfill the duties of citizenship. And no one would argue that criminals’ rights need to be revoked. Here is a quote from the Gales & Seaton’s History of Debates in Congress, page 451, dated June 8, 1789, House of Representatives, discussing the Amendments to the Constitution: James Madison: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.” This is the original text of the 2nd amendment and speaks volumes about what the true intent was. Notice that the main clause is stated FIRST, followed by the primary reason for the right.

[@kylespade5958]

@Corno di Bassetto man...you're stupid.

[@moranii1843]

You're brain on libertarianism: You're rights are being taken away because you can't purchase or hold military grade weapons, vehicles, or bombs

[@someonenew439]

Thank you for pointing out that the right for individuals to own weapons outside of the militia clause is valid. History has shown that the 2nd amendment was a right to own arms and that the militia was just one of many reason for gun ownership. Only historically ignorant people would suggest the 2nd amendment was ever just for the militia.

[@exposeevil5492]

Article 6 paragraph 2 says ANY STATE LAW IN CONFLICT IS NULL AND VOID OF LAW! Point blank period no doubt or questions can be made about this.

[@serenityranch3538]

Miller was not about who could own what, but rather about what type of weapons were protected. The court was not presented any evidence that the short barrel shotgun was beneficial to aiding a defensive militia. The reason they were not presented any evidence is because Miller was not represented in the trail. Only the federal government was represented in the trail. They ruled that the short barreled shotgun could be regulated in the absence of such evidence. The case was remanded back to the lower court to explore the possibility that such evidence existed however Miller was either on the run or dead so the lower court never had the chance to rehear the case.

[@boedude8496]

there is not one sentence or phrase in the Constitution that allows for any government to restrict firearm possession for any reason, regardless of safety concerns or even the judicial status of the citizen (felons). the assertion that government can violate to one degree or another the rights of the citizenry for safety or any other reason if it can show 'just cause' is salacious and why governments are so dangerous. the government's authority comes from only one place and this power is not there. there is no constitutional limit on arms. courts are part of the government and they do everything they can to preserve their jobs and power. even scalia was guilty of self and government before country. but fortunately he did throw us a bone, though it was full of razor blades

[@handybarker8569]

No. Even Scalia in his statement concludes that concealed carry is not covered in this decision.

[@DangerousWordsPodcast]

Have you read the federalist papers? The writers of the constitution explain VERY CLEARLY that they meant the entirety of US citizens when they wrote the 2nd amendment. It really isn't as confusing as the left would like you to think it is. As far as concealed carry the founding fathers never thought that would ever be an issue because they never thought that we as a people would fight to make ourselves more susceptible to tyranny... They obviously never met a democrat who fights to be controlled by the government in EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE WAY!

[@makennabaker1927]

Thank you so much for this video! It helped me so much! Thank you thank you thank YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@remc70]

The reason the Supreme Court made that statement is the fact that miller was dead and no argument was use to have a saw off shotgun. The court instead agrees by default on the government side, however they quoiting from Blackstone the importance of having an up to date weapons, they left it as open question about the gun control act of 1934

[@exposeevil5492]

Blackstone's commentaries is law. Where can I find this? Is it in the first chapter?

[@BenTheThird]

Thanks for the video. This was one of the easiest constitutional decisions ever placed before the Supreme Court.

[@emmittmatthews8636]

And yet 4 unconstitutional judges tried to stop the truth..

[@RemoteViewr1]

Did criminals comply with the law? If not, what is the point of disarming honest people? Why guarantee law abiding people can only be victims? Do criminals pass these laws to guarantee them a safe work place? Or do the legislative bodies work for the criminals? Are the legislators themselves protected by men with guns? Frankly, the premise of infringement works for the safety of violent actors and against the physical safety of the law abiding. How asinine.

[@DangerousWordsPodcast]

Because most democrats are criminals so they hope to make us easier to rule over

[@ohger427]

Democrats know they can't push socialism on a people that poses the tools to say ….NO!

[@mattw7057]

Because gun control supporters have an irrational fear of guns. They let their emotions dictate their entire philosophy on guns and it’s really pathetic.

[@hafsalinda]

They must us text history and tradition, finding historic analogs to what is complained of from 1791, when deciding 2a cases. They can not balance test your rights away as before. Thanks NYSRAPA vs Bruen!

[@mariotorchio4075]

what does this case say about the type of gun that an individual can posses?

[@andreingramakadjscrewrip7372]

Mario Torchio "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." - www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

[@raymarchetta7551]

Guns "in common use". (Pistols revolvers and semi automatic rifles).

[@roper2234]

I'm having a hard time finding where Scalia said, There is nothing in legislative history of the constitution, state constitutions, writing, or even English history showing that the founding fathers intended to limit gun ownership solely for militia purposes. Can you direct me to where he said that?

[@mefirst5427]

I had lot of respect for the late justice John Paul Stevens until this case, he was a WWII veteran and should have known better that tyrannical governments disarm its subjects and imposing absolute power. He even wrote a highly opinionated political article in the Atlantic. I think his old age ego clouded his judgement. Late justice Scalia instead used very well thought legal logic, highly recommend his majority opinion, good read. I had to read it many many times over couple years to appreciate his well thought research.

[@euphegenia]

If one justice voted in favor of DC, this would’ve been a case as bad as Plessy.

[@young9534]

Pro gun control arguments are based on emotions, not on logic.

[@vivianmariahh]

so are pro life arguments

[@young9534]

@@vivianmariahh Yeah I agree

[@mattw7057]

@@vivianmariahh So you admit pro gun control positions are based on emotions?

[@vivianmariahh]

​@@mattw7057 My mindset has actually changed a bit since I made that comment. I think all opinions are swayed by emotion a little bit but it is true that bad people are going to do bad things regardless. As long as the people owning firearms know how to take care of it and use it responsibly there should be no issue. It's really hard to place gun laws in high crime areas because high crime areas mostly are areas that are poor and face other issues that result in crime. So by preventing the crime itself that's cool but we also need to cultivate a community that doesn't feel the need to use guns as a weapon to get what they need.

[@emmittmatthews8636]

​@@vivianmariahhSometimes, but not always.

[@bad71hd]

" THE RIGHT TO ' KEEP' & ' BEAR' ARMS SHALL NOT BE " INFRINGED"! PERIOD!

[@wayanlantela8175]

Why is it called the District of Columbia if it's nowhere near Columbia?

[@billyharrington4872]

Thanks!

[@storm-night1451]

So some Bill of Rights apply to states and some don't. Wasn't it made to keep all of the government from becoming too powerful? Didn't the forefathers create the Bill of Rights to keep the government to do this? Because didn't the British take away firearms?

[@supermatx]

No government power is unlimited, No personal right is unlimited. We all have a right to free speech, but that doesn't allows us to shout 'FIRE!!!' in a crowded theater xD.

[@brkbtjunkie]

Clearly the lower courts and dissenting judges never heard of the trench guns used in WWI

[@ohger427]

If you are unarmed you live at the mercy of those who are not....Need proof, give up your right and ability to defend yourself......Then claim you are free....Tyrants and criminals throughout history will insist otherwise....Its for your own safety, Of course. "Shall not be infringed"

[@CobaltZ_hans]

Now its time to update this one to show the decision of SCOTUS in NYSRPA v. Bruen

[@zainsaeed9099]

Thank you so much dude saved from spothrda

[@rkba4923]

In Miller, the court prefaced it's holding with "Since no evidence has been presented to the court that a shotgun ..." (or verbiage substantially to that effect) because Miller had died by the time the case came before the court and his sorry arsed lawyer didn't even show up to argue the case. The Miller case means nothing but did indicate that if a weapon has military utility (you know like fully automatic machine guns and shoulder-fired anti-tank/aircraft missiles, mortars, etc.; including "Any Thing which may be used for offensive or defensive purposes; usually refers to weapons of military utility."), it's guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Additionally, the courts are obligated to "preserve" the FULL SCOPE of ALL of our RIGHTS and NOT just the "core right" because that's the PRIMARY reason governments are instituted among men. Further, the Supreme Court has repeatedly defined "to bear arms" as: “… to ‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Heller v. D.C., 554 U. S., at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125,143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting); alterations and some internal quotation marks omitted). Sure sounds like Open or Concealed Carry at the discretion of the individual to me! And, it covers both long guns and handguns, knives, swords, daggers, e.g. "Any Thing ..." Let's look at some other legal definitions: INFRINGE: actively break the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; disobey, defy, flout, fly in the face of; disregard, ignore, neglect; go beyond, overstep, exceed; infract; act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on, restrict, limit, curb, check; undermine, erode, diminish, weaken, impair, damage, compromise, REGULATE WITHOUT LAWFUL POWER, as in, "The statute infringes constitutionally guaranteed rights." WELL REGULATED: Operating properly; functioning as intended And, the famous slave case, Dredd Scott v. Sandford, indicates where and when we can carry: “It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs AND TO KEEP AND CARRY ARMS WHEREVER THEY WENT. ...” - Dred Scott v. Sandford (Page 60 U.S. 417) [EMPHASIS MINE] Furthermore, the government's arguments that they have expanded/enhanced, non-enumerated powers because they have declared an "emergency" for "Public Safety" (or even "National Security") and passed some "color of law" legislation are UNPERSUASIVE and MAKE NO SENSE since the Constitution and Bill of RIGHTS were written by the founders with the expressed purposes of ensuring "Domestic Tranquility" and promoting the "General Welfare". Both terms which INCLUDE the goals of "public safety" and "national security"! And, finally, we MUST STOP our illegitimate, criminal, foreign government from continuing to use their Commerce Power UNLAWFULLY to contravene other provisions of the Supreme Law, such as Background Checks (which violate over a half dozen rights at a minimum) and other "infringements" imposed by UNLAWFUL "commerce" rules, regulations and other "color of law"! (With our Privately Owned Automobiles and Right to Travel too by the way!) Actually, I would begin my defense or case with a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction that it's OUTSIDE the lawful Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the court and that the right's enshrinement in the Bill of Rights takes legislative options off the table too (that's actually already standing precedent - aka: stare decisis) and move for dismissal because the prosecutor has brought a complaint for which the court has no lawful jurisdiction and cannot grant relief! But, I'm not a lawyer and never went to law school just multitudes of Law School Websites on the web. Fwiw

[@planetbathwater317]

Yeah, thanks guys. I can understand better with someone else verbalizing it. Maybe they'll use that against my ownership of a firearm someday.

[@gaguy1967]

Stevens and Breyer opinion are awful. Stevens says the default position is you can’t own a gun unless the legislature says otherwise. Which is the opposite of true. Breyer says prohibiting a cop from owning a gun at home is not a burden on firearms rights . Breyer opinion is so beyond idiotic. He acknowledged a right to own a gun but then said banning guns does not place an undue burden on one’s 2nd amendment rights

[@Christophernorbits]

We need constitutional carry

[@soulful1ification]

Question: How does and originalist get to choose which part of the text is more important, i.e. the right to bear arms?

[@SeraphsWitness]

There's no choosing happening at all. They concluded that the first part of the sentence is the prefatory clause, and the second one is operative clause. And judging from multiple federalist papers, we know that the founders considered all the people to be the "militia". It wasn't a regimented organization. It was the common man.

[@emmittmatthews8636]

Study history and law and it becomes crystal clear. Or just read the amendment properly. 🤷‍♂️

[@tomsorkness3756]

Interesting!

[@towhomitmayconcern8866]

the commas in the 2nd amendment are wht separated the running sentance of the 2nd amendment.

[@DangerousWordsPodcast]

EXACTLY It is TWO separate statements... "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." Since when did the military need an amendment to be armed... In what country do they have a military of unarmed soldiers? LMFAO

[@Anans1_Spyd3r]

2:15 "Deep Textual Analysis" is a bit of a reach especially if you review his arguments even deeper. I am not mad at decision but I am mad about the principles used to get there which contradict so much conservative jurisprudunce.

[@purinat_sun]

Relying on the previous ruling would have reaffirmed the “separate but equal” doctrine. I’m pretty sure most, if not all, of those who harken back to the previous ruling in this case would not do the same when it comes to racial segregation. Just like when they don’t accept the conclusion that freedom of the press only applies to printed media while claiming that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to the kind of arms that existed at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified. They are anything but consistent.

[@apm9151]

If you are confused in anyway about the language of the Second Amendment and don’t know what the founding fathers intended?? Just read the Federalist papers lol

[@opmike343]

Interesting that a convicted felon can be considered too dangerous to own a firearm but still safe enough to move about in society.

[@SeraphsWitness]

Hmm that's a good point, I never considered that.

[@cl8804]

ye it almost as though weapons make violent people able to do more damage

[@chrispreston256]

There are no constitutional rights only government limitations

[@ariurip3751]

So Heller cant keep his gun

[@gabrielduerr4409]

What was the effect on this case

[@AdamSmith-gs2dv]

The effect should be the end to gun control (outside of convicted felons or the mental I'll as judged by a court) but of course Dems don't care

[@rkba4923]

It's supposedly being fought out in the District Courts of Appeal. The Supreme Court just agreed to hear the first real 2A case in over a decade; so, we may be getting a bit more guidance from them in about a year. I just don't understand what all the confusion is about. When I read the 2A it is very simple and clear to me.

[@gabrielduerr4409]

@@rkba4923 bro i had a project on this back in freshman year 3 years ago omg. thank you for responding though 🤣

[@rkba4923]

@@gabrielduerr4409 The point is, after all this time, we're still waiting for an answer to your question. And, the Republic has only been in existence for around 250 years. Personally, I don't understand the confusion because, when I read the Constitution/2nd Amendment, it seems pretty clear to me. Take care and best wishes.

[@Karma101YT]

Who has Mr u

[@erenology1102]

who has Mr.Laughlin?

[@killersugar6816]

The founders had single shot muzzleloaders with short range projectiles…

[@emmittmatthews8636]

The people owned what the Federal army owned.

[@Newguy2it]

In what did the nshot gun not support support the militia.

[@vince_23_silver22]

O hey I'm so not here because the 6th inauguration..

[@CupidFromKentucky]

1:40 it was a narrow decision?

[@CupidFromKentucky]

@Corno di Bassetto I'm saying it wasn't a narrow decision, it was a landmark decision.

[@vsi746]

Okay this helped so much better than having to read tiny words (In 8th grade)

[@erenology1102]

Your comment :(In 8th grade) and also a year ago me:(now in 9th grade )

[@erenology1102]

@Ella Bond-Knorr what do u want me to help u out with

[@erenology1102]

@Ella Bond-Knorr WHAT DO U WANT ME TO HELP U OUT WITH ? WHAT CASE ?

[@agentk2465]

I am by no means a fanatic of firearms and do not even have one. And furthermore my opinions are not in line with US American conservative lawyers, e.g. I am clearly against death penalty because I do not trust that the state is perfect enough to prevent the execution of innocents. But as a German citizens I really also find the over-restrictive gun-laws in Germany very questionable. They simply deprive citizens of basic rights and overpower police and army. And I was stunned when I read the story about the "DC vs. Columbia" case. The US constitution simply guarantees the private possession of firearms that represent the militia weapons (e.g. non-automatic handguns). It is as easy as that as far as I see. So the DC law was blatantly unconstitutional and the Supreme Court had to turn that down with 9:0 majority I would presume. Instead it was a tight 5:4. The dissents of the "liberal" judges in "Heller vs DC" are hilarious in my opinion. I have to agree with ´the right-wingers here (which is rare..). I have never seen such strongly left-wing judges as the liberals in US Supreme Court, and I am speaking of todays Germany and Europe where we (fortunately) do not have a right-wing jurisdiction. Reading about some landmark cases I am really astonished that sometimes I found the dissents of Scalia and Thomas much more convincing by LOGICAL and LAW aspects than the majority decision - although I agreed with the POLITICAL point of the liberals! The liberal judges really seem to make politics directly from the Court. They sometimes try to 'overrule' right-wing politics or to 'correct' flawed strategies of lawyers of the defendants (who claimed the wrong rights) rather than really fixing wrong jurisdiction.

[@Camulus777]

The right for the people to keep and carry firearms shall not be infringed is an absolute claws. In today's context and after reading historical accounts for the second amendment by the original authors that wrote it is quite clear. If written today for layman it would probebly be something like this. In case it is necessary for the people to form a private army under the direction of free thinking people in the response of their rights being infringed upon or in the defence of their own property and all liberties (a militia) the right for the free private citizens of this nation to own and carry military weapons comparable to any threatening force, be they foreign or domestic shal in no way be abridged, restricted, countermanded, or diminished by anyone or any law federal, state, or local. The reason for the first section about a well regulated militia with a comma afterward, is to state a purpose, not set a condition upon which the "right" , a clearly and strategically chosen word meaning a condition set before any federal or state law, is to be considered for. So pretty much in case an individual, group, or government here or elsewhere sends people to take away your rights and liberties or property, you have the ability and duty to defend yourself, violently if necessary, and your families. What about the restrictions on arms. Well there are none. At all. It was not until the government vilified automatic weapons because of the mob that restrictions were placed. In fact after wars, people purchased captured guns or took them home to sell. This included fully automatic weapons. The idea here was to make sure that the people had weapons that equaled those used by militaries around the world including the USA. Now I love when people say " so you believe private citizens should have nukes?" this always stumps me... no no its doesn't stump me or any reasonable person of moderate intelect. Nukes are the most extreme of extreme weapons imaginable. In fact they are so extreme that they have ever only been used in war twice and only by one country, and only to stop all current conflicts and possible escalations or continuations of said conflicts during that time. Possibly the only responsible use for such a weapon. These weapons are so destructive and complex that a single person would not be able to operate them. In the US military it takes hundreds of people to "push the big red button". Satelites, ground recon, targeting, communications, fueling, the arming of the warhead and the launch are not conducted by one person because that is not a part of the weapon's operation. Could you have a less sophisticated bomb detonated via suicide bomber or via remote. This is not holywood people. Making the device requires an operational nuclear reactor to produce sufficient quality material for a fission device and these things are kinda expensive. Your average Joe would probebly not be able to obtain or make such a device and the bigger kicker is that these devices are not intended to be used for defence they are offencive weapons. Their very existence and not use is defencive. Also they are banned by international laws that restrict the obtaining of the fuel necessary for their function. Guns are not. Automatic weapons are less effective as a defense weapon and are used as a strategic weapon but are covered by the second amendment. The length of a barrel as well has no bearing on a weapons lethality only its concealability. No firearm should be restricted because of function or caliber size. The only thing that should be considered is if the ammo is designed to kill efficiently or cause intentional suffering.

[@maxmoser412]

Except all of that nonsense completely ignores the context of the times in 1791 and everything Madison stated in regards to the 2A. The 2A simply delegated the defense of the nation to "well regulated state militias." Firstly, federal taxes didn't exist yet. So there was no way to fund a federal army. Secondly, we had just defeated a massive Army controlled by a tyrant King. Therefore the forefathers obviously didn't want the President to control a massive federal army that could be used against the people. And the anti-federalists sure as Hell weren't going to be cool about risking that, let alone funding a federal army with a federal tax. But even the federalists never wanted a federal army. Madison was quite clear about the intent and reasoning behind the 2A. Scalia and Co. just chose to completely ignore him and the 200+ years of legal constitutional precedent based on the clear intent of the forefathers.

[@PullUpOnJah]

Is it still relevant??

[@willross-er5jn]

What a terrible interpretation of the 2nd amendment and not what the founders intended. Does any other amendment have an "introductory" clause. No. Why? Because they made it up to justify their personal opinions on guns. Blatantly going against the original purpose of the amendment

[@jacklopinto750]

is the 2nd amendment fullfilable; one firearm for each person. 400 million americans 400 million firearm

[@rodneymorlan4056]

Bunch

[@alexa561]

how did this case effect society

[@joel1501]

Can you talk slower in your next video please?

[@SeraphsWitness]

Change the playback speed in the player.

[@Panchirito_Official]

im confused... why full automatic isnt banned

[@AdamSmith-gs2dv]

The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall NOT be infringed. What's so hard to understand about that?

[@leahlandon8429]

@@AdamSmith-gs2dv How can you be so sure that the second amendment extends to automatic guns if those types of guns weren't around when the framers wrote the Constitution? No hate, just curious about your side.

[@david52875]

@@leahlandon8429 How can you be sure the First Amendment """"extends"""" to the internet when it wasnt around when the framers wrote the constitution?

[@SeraphsWitness]

Fully automatics ARE banned. For most people anyway. You can go through a very lengthy and expensive process to possibly get a license to allow certain classes of restricted firearms. But it's typically not worth it.

[@SeraphsWitness]

@@leahlandon8429 Maybe not automatics, but certainly repeating rifles were around. The Girindoni Air rifle, pepperbox revolver, Puckle Gun, Belton Flintlock... these were all around in the 18th century. James Madison even wrote a letter of reprisal to a private ship captain telling him he was allowed to defend his product with cannons. There's no mystery what the founders believed. And certainly they had an understanding of technological development of firearms. To think they never considered it would be insane. The guy before me makes an equally good point... why would we think the First Amendment extends to the Internet? The founders had no inkling of the level of mass communication we have today. That's a WAY bigger technological jump than anything we've seen in firearms.