[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Commerce Clause, and is thus, in the wordsWe have thus far discussed the effect of The Federalist, merely [an] ac[t] of usur-that federal control of state officers would pation which deserve[s] to be treated ashave upon the first element of the double such. . [E]ven where Congress has thesecurity alluded to by Madison: the divi- authority under the Constitution to pass lawssion of power between State and Federal requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacksGovernments.It would also have an effect the power directly to compel the States toupon the second element: the separation and require or prohibit those acts.equilibration of powers between the threebranches of the Federal Government itself.* * * 544 CONSTITUTIONAL LAWWe held in New York that Congress cannot a handgun that he wished to keep at home,compel the States to enact or enforce a fed- but the District refused.He thereafter filed aeral regulatory program.Today we hold that lawsuit in the Federal District Court for theCongress cannot circumvent that prohibition District of Columbia seeking, on Secondby conscripting the State s officers directly.Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city fromThe Federal Government may neither issue enforcing the bar on the registration of hand-directives requiring the States to address par- guns, the licensing requirement insofar asticular problems, nor command the States it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in theofficers, or those of their political subdivi- home without a license, and the trigger-locksions, to administer or enforce a federal requirement insofar as it prohibits the use ofregulatory program.It matters not whether functional firearms within the home. .policymaking is involved, and no case-by- We turn first to the meaning of the Secondcase weighing of the burdens or benefits is Amendment.necessary; such commands are fundamen- The Second Amendment provides: Atally incompatible with our constitutional well regulated Militia, being necessary tosystem of dual sovereignty.Accordingly, the security of a free State, the right of thethe judgment of the Court of Appeals for the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not beNinth Circuit is reversed.infringed. .The two sides in this case have set out verydifferent interpretations of the Amendment.It is so ordered.Petitioners and today s dissenting Justices[Concurring and dissenting opinionsbelieve that it protects only the right to pos-omitted.]sess and carry a firearm in connection withmilitia service.Respondent argues that it pro-tects an individual right to possess a firearmDISTRICT OF COLUMBIAunconnected with service in a militia, and tov.use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes,HELLERsuch as self-defense within the home.The Second Amendment is naturally___ U.S.__ , 128 S.Ct.2783, 171divided into two parts: its prefatory clauseL.Ed.2d 637 (2008)and its operative clause.The former doesnot limit the latter grammatically, but ratherJustice SCALIA delivered the opinion ofannounces a purpose.The Amendment couldthe Court.be rephrased, Because a well regulatedMilitia is necessary to the security of a freeWe consider whether a District ofState, the right of the people to keep andColumbia prohibition on the possession ofbear Arms shall not be infringed. Althoughusable handguns in the home violates thethis structure of the Second AmendmentSecond Amendment to the Constitution.is unique in our Constitution, other legalThe District of Columbia generally prohibitsdocuments of the founding era, particularlythe possession of handguns.It is a crime to carryindividual-rights provisions of state constitu-an unregistered firearm, and the registration oftions, commonly included a prefatory state-handguns is prohibited.District of Columbiament of purpose.law also requires residents to keep their law-fully owned firearms, such as registered long* * *guns, unloaded and dissembled or bound bya trigger lock or similar device unless they are.The prefatory clause does not suggestlocated in a place of business or are being usedthat preserving the militia was the only rea-for lawful recreational activities.son Americans valued the ancient right; mostRespondent Dick Heller is a D.C.specialundoubtedly thought it even more importantpolice officer authorized to carry a handgunfor self-defense and hunting.But the threatwhile on duty at the Federal Judicial Center.that the new Federal Government wouldHe applied for a registration certificate for PART II: CASES RELATING TO CHAPTER 1 545DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V.HELLERdestroy the citizens militia by taking away conditions and qualifications on the commer-their arms was the reason that right-unlike cial sale of arms.some other English rights-was codified in a We also recognize another important limi-written Constitution.tation on the right to keep and carry arms.Besides ignoring the historical reality that Miller said, as we have explained, that thethe Second Amendment was not intended sorts of weapons protected were those into lay down a novel principl[e] but rather common use at the time. We think thatcodified a right inherited from our English limitation is fairly supported by the historicalancestors, petitioners interpretation does tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dan-not even achieve the narrower purpose that gerous and unusual weapons. prompted codification of the right.If, as they It may be objected that if weapons thatbelieve, the Second Amendment right is no are most useful in military service M-16more than the right to keep and use weapons rifles and the like may be banned, thenas a member of an organized militia, that is, the Second Amendment right is completelythe organized militia is the sole institutional detached from the prefatory clause.But asbeneficiary of the Second Amendment s we have said, the conception of the militia atguarantee it does not assure the exis- the time of the Second Amendment s ratifica-tence of a citizens militia as a safeguard tion was the body of all citizens capable ofagainst tyranny.For Congress retains plenary military service, who would bring the sorts ofauthority to organize the militia, which must lawful weapons that they possessed at homeinclude the authority to say who will belong to militia duty.It may well be true today that ato the organized force.Thus, if petitioners militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18thare correct, the Second Amendment protects century, would require sophisticated arms thatcitizens right to use a gun in an organization are highly unusual in society at large.Indeed,from which Congress has plenary authority it may be true that no amount of small armsto exclude them.It guarantees a select militia could be useful against modern-day bombersof the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but and tanks.But the fact that modern develop-not the people s militia that was the concern ments have limited the degree of fit betweenof the founding generation.the prefatory clause and the protected rightcannot change our interpretation of the right.We turn finally to the law at issue here.As* * *we have said, the law totally bans handgunpossession in the home.It also requires thatLike most rights, the right secured by theany lawful firearm in the home be disassem-Second Amendment is not unlimited.Frombled or bound by a trigger lock at all times,Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,rendering it inoperable
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]