UNDERSTANDING D.C. V. HELLER

The District of Columbia forbids almost all civilians to possess handguns in their own homes. Rifles and shotguns are permitted, but they must be kept unloaded and either disassembled or secured with a trigger lock, making them useless for self defense. The D.C. Circuit recently held that this statute violates the Second Amendment.

One way to attack the D.C. Circuit decision is to argue that the Second Amendment protects the private possession of firearms only to the extent necessary to preserve in civilian hands a stock of firearms suitable for use while serving in the militia. Rifles and shotguns would be the most obviously useful firearms for militiamen to bring with them from home, and the D.C. statute permits civilians to possess rifles and shotguns, along with the ammunition these firearms require. Why does this not satisfy the Second Amendment?

This superficially plausible defense of the District's statute was not adequately refuted in Judge Silberman's opinion for the D.C. Circuit. This presentation will demonstrates, largely but not exclusively on the basis of a careful linguistic analysis of the Second Amendment, that such a defense of the District's statute is untenable.

GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS
Professor of Law, The University of Tennessee College of Law
NELSON LUND
Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law BATFE Presentors