Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 3

Cite as:  554 U. S. ____ (2008) 

3 

Syllabus 

prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense 
of  self,  family,  and  property  is  most  acute—would  fail  constitutional 
muster.  Similarly,  the  requirement  that  any  lawful  firearm  in  the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional.  Because Heller conceded at oral argument 
that  the  D. C.  licensing  law  is  permissible  if  it  is  not  enforced  arbi-
trarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. 
Assuming  he  is  not  disqualified  from  exercising  Second  Amendment 
rights,  the  District  must  permit  Heller  to  register  his  handgun  and 
must issue him a license to carry it in the home.  Pp. 56–64. 

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed. 

SCALIA,  J.,  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  in  which  ROBERTS, 
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined.  STEVENS, J., filed a 
dissenting  opinion,  in  which  SOUTER,  GINSBURG,  and  BREYER,  JJ., 
joined.  BREYER,  J.,  filed  a  dissenting  opinion,  in  which  STEVENS, 
SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.