District of Columbia v. Heller

Supreme Court of the United States · 2008 · Constitutional Law

554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Updated July 29, 2026

Constitutional LawSecond Amendmentindividual rightkeep and bear armsself-defensehandgun banhometrigger lock

Facts

The District of Columbia generally prohibited handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm while also prohibiting registration of handguns. District law also required lawfully owned firearms in the home to be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock unless at a place of business or used for lawful recreational activities. Dick Heller, a D.C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He challenged the handgun-registration ban, the licensing requirement as applied in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prevented functional firearms in the home.

Issue

Whether the District of Columbia's prohibition on possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment. More specifically, whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service and to use that arm for lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home.

Rule

The Second Amendment confers an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation, and the central component of that right is self-defense. The right is not unlimited: it does not protect any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and permits longstanding prohibitions such as bans on possession by felons and the mentally ill, bans in sensitive places, conditions on commercial sales, and restrictions on dangerous and unusual weapons. Weapons protected are those typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, and a law that bans an entire class of arms overwhelmingly chosen for lawful self-defense in the home, or requires lawful firearms in the home to be kept inoperable so they cannot be used for immediate self-defense, is unconstitutional.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The city of Cleveland enacts an ordinance barring residents from possessing any handgun inside their homes, but it allows them to keep registered rifles and shotguns there. Marcus Hale, a law-abiding accountant, wants a handgun in his apartment for self-defense and challenges the ordinance.

Who is most likely to prevail?

Explanation. The majority held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation, with self-defense at its core. A complete ban on handguns in the home is unconstitutional because handguns are the class of arms overwhelmingly chosen by Americans for lawful self-defense in the home, and allowing rifles or shotguns instead is not an adequate answer.