A Brief Overview of the Heller vs. District of Columbia Case
In 2002, a man named Dick Heller complained to the court that the District of Columbia did not offer him a handgun when he was fully qualified for it. Heller was a special policeman during that time, and he had a gun at department but not at his residence. When he asked the District for a handgun, and when they refused, he immediately filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration. During that time, there was a law that handgun possession was illegal. Any unregistered firearm, and non registered handguns were illegal. A person would have to be licensed for and handgun, have a police chief to issue a one year license, and the state required armed residents to keep their firearms unload and dissemble or bound by a trigger lock. In response to the District's decline towards his request, Heller sought to overturn the rules of the prohibition of guns at homes, and the trigger lock requirement when the guns were carried. In short, Heller claimed that the District of Columbia violated the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. In the end, the Supreme Court decided that the 2nd Amendment protects individual right to have handguns even without association with the militia if used only in defense lawfully. The Supreme Court also recognized that the trigger lock on guns and the requirement to keep guns dissembled in public were unconstitutional because people are unable to defend themselves quickly enough in case of a conflict. In addition, the Supreme Court analyzed the words " a well regulated militia" to be mostly capable males able to perform self defense. So, the Supreme Court agreed to Heller's case that the control of guns in the District of Columbia was unconstitutional and that people should be able to own guns at their residence for legal self defense only.
Other Conflicts
During the 1870's, there was a person named William Cruikshank who was a member of the Klu Klux Klan. He was tried in federal court for violating the federal civil rights protecting African Americans. The federal trial found the Cruikshank to be guilty of conspiring to deprive African American their right to bear arms. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cruikshank, arguing that the people must look upon the local government for protection against violation of their rights. The Supreme Court's defense was the 14th amendment, and that states have powers
A major conflict was the Presser vs. Illinois case during 1886. This time, a man named Herman Presser led an armed group under the name of Lehr Und Wehr Verein in the streets of Chicago. Presser and his group had an issue of the Illinois's laws, but he was eventually convicted and superseded by various provisions of the federal law. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, stating that the acceptance of Presser would be the same as to deny the state's right to disperse mobs.
A major conflict was the Presser vs. Illinois case during 1886. This time, a man named Herman Presser led an armed group under the name of Lehr Und Wehr Verein in the streets of Chicago. Presser and his group had an issue of the Illinois's laws, but he was eventually convicted and superseded by various provisions of the federal law. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, stating that the acceptance of Presser would be the same as to deny the state's right to disperse mobs.