WRFH/Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM - In Media Res: D.C. vs. Heller

Episode Date: October 8, 2024

Join Hershey and Stephanie as they discuss the landmark Supreme Court case D.C. v Heller and the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Hello, beautiful people, and welcome to our show on Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. My name is Hershey. And my name is Stephanie. And we're your host for Media Res, a show where we examine a landmark court case starting from the middle of the action. Today we're going to take you on a little adventure as we discuss exactly what our Second Amendment right is and the infamous case of District of Columbia v. Heller that formed our understanding of it today. Are you ready to dive in, Stephanie? Yeah, I'm excited to hear all about it. So let's start with what our Second Amendment right is.

Our Second Amendment states 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. So it's 2008. There's this law in place known as the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975. The law banned residents from owning handguns and automatic firearms and also prohibited the possession of unregistered firearms. However, exceptions to this ban were allowed for police officers and other special cases. On top of this, this act required firearms that were kept in a home to be unloaded, disassembled,

or bound by a trigger lock. At the time, if you wanted to possess a handgun, you could apply for a license, but it was very unlikely that you would get approval. Robert A. Levy was a man who wanted to sue the District of Columbia for this act, and had been planning to finance a lawsuit to test the... quote, core meaning of the Second Amendment. He never owned a handgun, but considered himself a constitutional scholar and wanted to use this case for campaign purposes.

He gathered six plaintiffs of different economic backgrounds, genders, ages, and ethnicities. The name plaintiff in today's case is Dick Anthony Heller. Now, Dick was a police officer in the District of Columbia, and for his job, he was able to carry a gun in federal office buildings and other parts of D.C. However, he was denied the ability to have a handgun in his own home. He had been living in parts of D.C. that were particularly unsafe and wanted a means to protect himself.

So the question in this case is, does the Second Amendment warrant an individual right to possess a gun? Does it say that each man has the right to hold a gun, or is it a collective right for a well-regulated militia? Walter E. Dellinger was the lead counsel for the prosecution. He argued that there is no individual right to be armed. a right for the people in the military and in the militia. Furthermore, he claimed that D.C. is in a state, so even if the amendment meant individuals retain the right to own a gun, it wouldn't apply to D.C. residents. Alan Gura led counsel for Heller and argued on his behalf before the Supreme Court. He argued that there was an individual right to own a gun, and it was for self-defense.

This case was dismissed by the district court, and at the Court of Appeals, the law was struck down as unconstitutional. It gained a lot of favor throughout the nation, and many briefs were submitted to Supreme Court. Now, once this case reached the Supreme Court, it was decided in favor of Heller by a five to four majority. The law prohibiting ownership of handguns and regulating their storage in the home was deemed unconstitutional. Justice Antonin Scalia gave the majority opinion in this case, and he essentially said that the first clause of the Second Amendment that references a militia does not mean the bearing of arms is strictly limited to those in militias. A militia in the founder's time wasn't even confined to those serving in a military capacity,

as we commonly think of it today. By the originalist interpretations followed by Scalia and others in the opinion, the term militia back then referred to all able-bodied men capable of serving in a defensive capacity. Now again, it is not limited to those who actually are actively serving in that capacity. So therefore banning handguns, which are most most of those. commonly used for self-defense and personal protection and requiring them to be dysfunctional in your own home where you would need to use it the most is in direct violation of the constitutional right. Justice Stevens wrote the dissent in this case. He said that the word militias in the

Second Amendment did indeed mean military militias. The amendment instead protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but the legislature still has the authority to regulate non-military use and ownership. Well, thank you so much for all of that, Hershey, and that's all we have for you today on the landmark trial of District of Columbia v. Heller. If this interests you, you can investigate the opinions of justices Scalia, Stevens, and Breyer in greater detail online,

and we thank you for tuning in with us. We're your host, Hershey and Stephanie, and you're listening to InMediares on Radio Free Hillsdale 101.1.7 FM.