Why is Heller such a radical departure from prior Second Amendment case law?
As discussed in LCAV’s brochure Gun Regulation and the Second Amendment: Moving Forward After District of Columbia v. Heller, the ruling in Heller represented a dramatic reversal of the Court’s previous interpretation of the Second Amendment. In United States v. Miller, the Court stated, in a unanimous decision, that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of” the state militia, and the Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” In reliance on Miller, hundreds of lower federal and state appellate courts had rejected Second Amendment challenges to our nation’s gun laws over the last seven decades, making Heller’s reversal of this interpretation a watershed moment in Second Amendment law. What issues were left unresolved by Heller? Because the Heller case involved a law enacted by Washington, D.C., a federal enclave, the Court did not address the significant issue of whether the Second Ame
Related Questions
- Can attorney’s fees increase on my Missouri traffic ticket case after I hire a traffic lawyer at Traffic Law Stop for my st louis or missouri traffic ticket?
- Does an injury case require an attorney who "specializes" in personal injury law?
- Why is Heller such a radical departure from prior Second Amendment case law?
