Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2007 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

No. 07–290.  Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008 

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime 
to  carry  an  unregistered  firearm  and  prohibiting  the  registration  of 
handguns;  provides  separately  that  no  person  may  carry  an  unli-
censed  handgun,  but  authorizes  the  police  chief  to  issue  1-year  li-
censes;  and  requires  residents  to  keep  lawfully  owned  firearms 
unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar de-
vice.  Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to regis-
ter  a  handgun  he  wished  to  keep  at  home,  but  the  District  refused. 
He filed  this  suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin
the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing 
requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in
the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the
use of functional firearms in the home.  The District Court dismissed 
the  suit,  but  the  D. C.  Circuit  reversed,  holding  that  the  Second 
Amendment  protects  an  individual’s  right  to  possess  firearms  and 
that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that
firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for
self-defense, violated that right. 

Held: 

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a 
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for 
traditionally  lawful  purposes,  such  as  self-defense  within  the  home.
Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does  not  limit  or  expand  the  scope  of  the  second  part,  the  operative
clause.  The  operative  clause’s  text  and  history  demonstrate  that  it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.  Pp. 2–22.   

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation