The Supreme Court’s Worst Decision of My Tenure

District of Columbia v. Heller recognized an individual right to possess a firearm under the Constitution. Here’s why the case was wrongly decided.

District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized an individual right to possess a firearm under the Constitution, is unquestionably the most clearly incorrect decision that the Supreme Court announced during my tenure on the bench.

The text of the Second Amendment unambiguously explains its purpose: “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.” When it was adopted, the country was concerned that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several states.

Throughout most of American history there was no federal objection to laws regulating the civilian use of firearms. When I joined the Supreme Court in 1975, both state and federal judges accepted the Court’s unanimous decision in United States v. Miller as having established that the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms was possessed only by members of the militia and applied only to weapons used by the militia. In that case, the Court upheld the indictment of a man who possessed a short-barreled shotgun, writing, “In the absence of any evidence that the possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

Gun Dynamics® in the Media

reuters
Nasdaq
Fox Business
NRATV
OANN
yahoo
NYT
guns.com
GUN WORLD
AAN
Newsmax
wallstreet reporter
bitcoinlove
yournews
wgmd
techjollof
usweekly
Forextv
rocketnews
dailyworld
newstage
presscorp
compuserve
The Gun Feed
baltimore post
rockland county times
srn news