D.C. v. Heller held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms for self-defense and that a district handgun ban is unconstitutional. Which description best captures this holding?

D.C. v. Heller held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms for self-defense and that a district handgun ban is unconstitutional. Which description best captures this holding?

• A. The Second Amendment Protects An Individual Right To Keep And Bear Arms For Self-Defense; The District Of Columbia Handgun Ban Is Unconstitutional
• B. The Second Amendment Protects Only Militia Rights
• C. The Second Amendment Applies Only To States
• D. The Second Amendment Is Untethered To Any Rights

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and use firearms for self-defense, not solely a collective militia power. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court held that this personal right exists and can apply inside the home, striking down the DC handgun ban as unconstitutional for ordinary individuals who want to defend themselves. The ruling also notes that the right is not unlimited, but it does protect possession for self-defense, with permissible regulations tailoring how the right is exercised. This makes the description the best fit because it captures both the personal nature of the right and the invalidation of the district’s outright ban. The other descriptions misstate the scope: the decision rejects a militia-only view, and while later cases have treated the right as applicable against the states, Heller itself focuses on the individual right and the unconstitutionality of the DC ban, rather than presenting the right as untethered or as limited only to state governments.

The key idea is that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and use firearms for self-defense, not solely a collective militia power. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court held that this personal right exists and can apply inside the home, striking down the DC handgun ban as unconstitutional for ordinary individuals who want to defend themselves. The ruling also notes that the right is not unlimited, but it does protect possession for self-defense, with permissible regulations tailoring how the right is exercised.

This makes the description the best fit because it captures both the personal nature of the right and the invalidation of the district’s outright ban. The other descriptions misstate the scope: the decision rejects a militia-only view, and while later cases have treated the right as applicable against the states, Heller itself focuses on the individual right and the unconstitutionality of the DC ban, rather than presenting the right as untethered or as limited only to state governments.