District Of Columbia Vs Heller Case Summary

In the case District of Columbia ( DC ) vs Heller an officer for DC got declined for the permit to have a gun in his home for the year. After this he decided that this was unfair and took it to court. He pointed out that he was a police officer and he carries a firearm with him at all times for the protection of others and himself, but the court denied him the right to have a firearm for the protection of him and his family. The constitutional issue with this case is the fact that it’s how DC wanted gun owners to break down their guns, have a trigger lock on it, and keep the ammo away from the firearm even though the gun is broken down without the trigger lock. The court that the case started in was the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The court system agreed with Heller and said DC was denying him the rights to own a handgun or any other type of firearm in the house for his personal protection for him and his family. The fact that the District of Columbia wanted the firearm to be non functional also
Along with this the gun needed to be broke down, have a trigger lock, the ammo needed to be store in one room, while the firearm was stored in another room. DC said this needed to be done with the intent of not to use the firearm even in self defense. This violated the second amendment. Heller did not violate the second amendment rights in this case at all. The second amendment states we have the right to bare arms. The only time we are not allowed to carry a firearm on us is if we are a felon, on government or school properties, or selling firearms illegally. Heller was not doing any of these things. He simply wanted to protect himself and his family just like I would if I were him. He was also an officer, so for his job duties he needed a handgun on him at all times for