The District of Columbia v. Heller Case Analysis
Introduction
The District of Columbia v. Heller of 2008 is an outspoken case that relates to the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment. It declares that people, who do not belong to militia service, are allowed to own and use a firearm for lawful reasons, for instance, self-defense at home (Harper, 2019). The case related to this Amendment is justified as Heller disagreed with the District of Columbia laws, which banned ordinary civilians’ right to own a firearm. Eventually, after multiple manipulations on the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court ratified the right of handgun ownership, which today is one of the most successful laws for civilians.
Discussion
The occurrence of the case was provoked by the factor of the District’s law unconstitutional action. The ban violated human rights to keep suitable weapons (Harper, 2019). Consequently, Heller challenged the Court, making it agree to protect civilians’ rights and save the Amendment’s effectiveness. As a result, Heller demanded to renew the interpretation of the Amendment, whose main idea was to ensure the right to protection from external threats for ordinary citizens (Harper, 2019). After this claim, the Supreme Court decided to support this interpretation and ratify the new version of the Second Amendment (Harper, 2019).
This case is directly connected with society, as it reveals people’s freedom. There are positive and negative effects made on society by the case. The advantageous effect is presented by the ability of people to avoid different types of crimes and to defend their country and themselves. This case also reinforces other laws and makes them work for a democratic society. Civilians now have to undergo a criminal background check to receive a weapon, so society is impacted by new regulations (Harper, 2019). After this case, Americans received benefits from the joint productive functioning of other governmental brunches. On the contrary, the negative effect is also mad on society. People are under the threat of unsafe weapons handling, which means that any unscrupulous person may harm individuals.
I agree with the decision made after the case review. Despite some adverse effects of the Amendment, people still have the right to protect themselves and their families. It can be seen in the examples of such countries as Ukraine. When Russian soldiers invaded the houses of civilians and started to kill them, people did not have any possibility to protect themselves. They could have survived, in most cases, when having a weapon at home, but their Constitution does not allow firearm ownership. I consider such an Amendment an excellent opportunity to keep society safe. I believe that American society was positively impacted by the Court’s ruling, as its final decision was in favor of Heller. My rights have been affected because, on the one hand, I can be protected by owning a weapon.
On the other hand, my life is threatened because some people may use this Amendment for violence. There is no opposite alternative to this case decision because barely anything can substitute protection for a weapon. As an example of an alternative, the new regulations of civil protection by special forces can be offered. The government might have introduced military rapid response groups, who would have had an office in each city district and controlled the everyday safety of civilians. These groups would not be the same as patrol police, who have many different responsibilities, but the ones whose primary aim would be to watch people’s homes’ safety.
Conclusion
Conclusively, the District of Columbia v. Heller of 2008 case refers to the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Its main idea is to allow ordinary civilians to own firearms and use them for self-defense at home. Taking into account the experience of the countries which do not have such laws, it may be stated that the US citizens are in benefit. The case positively impacts society because, after the law ratification and Second Amendment, it shows the freedom of the right to be safe.
References
Harper, C. (2019). Citizen or soldier? An originalist response to District of Columbia v. Heller and the intellectual origins of the Second Amendment. The Dartmouth Law Journal, 17(1), 6-34.