District of Columbia v. Heller was one of the most significant decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court that influenced individuals’ rights to possess arms. During the proceedings, it was ruled that it is legal to bear and use a registered firearm for lawful purposes (District of Columbia v. Heller, n. d.).
Walter E. Dellinger, the representative of the District of Columbia, and Heller’s main counsel Alan Gura argued the case (District of Columbia v. Heller, n. d.). From the oral argument, it was evident that the first attorney was increasingly persuasive in his attempt to prove the illegitimacy of using weapons since the district has strict gun control regulations. However, Gura clarified his case by providing solid evidence justifying the benefits of possessing arms for self-defense. At some controversial points, the sides were not able to finish their statement as the judges would interrupt them. In general, both lawyers argued their point well; yet the court benefited Heller’s representative for his claims were stronger.
During the hearing, Justice Antonin Scalia had a dominant position, often taking Heller’s side and asking from a liberal outlook. Meanwhile, Justice John Paul Stevens tried to dissect this opinion and brought D.C.’s conservative perspective (District of Columbia v. Heller, n. d.). Considering the brief, it was obvious the Justices would take Heller’s point of view because the right to possess an item is inherent. Additionally, Heller’s advocate provided decent claims to prove his opponent’s arguments contradicted the Second Amendment. The case might have implications on gun possession – there is a risk of unlawful weapon utilization. Finally, any individual may purchase as no eligibility criteria may cause fatal accidents.
District of Columbia v. Heller. (2008). Oyez. Web.