On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, finding for the first time that the Second Amendment gives law-abiding, responsible citizens the right to have a gun in the home for self-protection. While leaders in the gun lobby boasted that the decision would lead to the dismantling of gun safety regulations throughout the country, an examination of the legal landscape in a post-Heller world shows a far different reality.
A new report published today by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence takes a close look at the Heller decision and how courts have addressed gun issues in the ten years since. "10 Years Later: The Second Amendment and Public Safety After Heller[1]" surveys how the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment and what that's meant for subsequent legal challenges.
"One thing that the Supreme Court made absolutely clear, despite what the NRA likes to say, is that clear and reasonable restrictions on who can own and carry guns is entirely consistent with the Second Amendment," stated Brady Center co-president Avery Gardiner. "Heller is the law of the land. And as court after court has ruled, that means that there are limits on what gun ownership can and should mean."
In the ten years since Heller, more than 1,200 legal challenges have been heard by state and federal courts. And in more than 90% of those cases, the courts have rejected the Second Amendment challenge and ruled that the Heller decision can and does coexist with common-sense gun laws. Courts have consistently ruled over the past decade in favor of assault weapon bans, concealed and public
