How have Supreme Court rulings like District of Columbia v. Heller interpreted the Second Amendment?

1. Heller rewrote the basic question: individual right, not militia-only

The Supreme Court answered the long‑running debate over whether the Second Amendment protects only militia‑related rights or an individual right by concluding that it protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms unconnected with militia service, including use for lawful purposes such as self‑defense in the home ^[1][4]. The opinion emphasized ordinary meaning of the text and separated the prefatory “well regulated Militia” clause from the operative guarantee to “the people,” finding the prefatory clause announces a purpose rather than limits on the operative clause ^[5][6].

2. What Heller actually struck down — and what it left intact

Heller invalidated Washington, D.C.’s near‑total ban on handguns and its requirement that lawful firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional when needed for self‑defense, ordering that a license must be issued to a qualified applicant to keep a handgun at home ^[1][7]. At the same time the Court listed a “non‑exhaustive” set of presumptively lawful restrictions—longstanding bans on felons and the mentally ill, prohibitions in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and conditions on commercial sale—signaling that Heller did not abolish all gun regulation ^[3][8].

3. The tight majority and the sprawling dissent: competing perspectives

Heller was a 5–4 decision authored by Justice Scalia and sharply contested by the dissenters, who argued that public‑safety evidence (crime rates, urban handgun deaths) could justify the District’s restrictions and that the Amendment should be read in light of militia‑based purposes ^[9][5]. Legal scholars and judges offered polarized reactions—some praising the individual‑rights clarity, others calling the majority’s originalist history and method into question ^[2][10].

4. Jurisprudential gaps Heller left for future cases

Although Heller answered the central interpretive dispute, it left at least two critical doctrinal questions open: the standard of constitutional scrutiny that courts should apply to gun laws, and whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments (incorporation). Those unresolved issues produced extensive post‑Heller litigation and later decisions to fill parts of the vacuum ^[4][11]. Available sources do not mention how every subsequent case resolved all regulatory questions left by Heller.

5. Practical impact and policy debate: watershed or constrained shift?

Heller is widely seen as a watershed because it recognized an individual right for the first time in nearly 70 years of Supreme Court Second Amendment silence, thereby reshaping future litigation and lawmaking ^[12][4]. At the same time many commentators and the Court itself stressed limits—Heller carved out that the right is “not unlimited,” so the ruling both expanded constitutional protection for private gun ownership and made clear many longstanding restrictions remain potentially lawful ^[3][7].

6. What to watch next: interpretation, limits, and politics

Heller set a doctrinal baseline but left interpretation to lower courts and future Supreme Court decisions—questions about permissible regulations, the precise scope of “sensitive places,” and how to weigh public‑safety data against constitutional protections remain contested ^[9][4]. Observers should evaluate future rulings both for how they apply Heller’s text‑and‑history approach and for whether they expand or contract the list of “presumptively lawful” rules the majority identified ^[6][3].

Limitations: this analysis relies only on the provided reporting and case materials; available sources do not mention every post‑Heller outcome or the full range of scholarship critiquing the majority’s historical method ^[10].