District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

Backround:
The District of Columbia passed legislaton that required people who owned handguns to store them unloaded and disassembled. Private gun-owners opposed this new legislation, saying that it infringed on their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The D.C. federal trial court, however, said that the Second Amendment strictly applies to militias only, and not to people who wish to privately own handguns.

Issue:
Does a law requiring handguns to be kept unloaded and disassembled violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who want to privately own a handgun, who are not part of a militia?

Decision:
5-4
The Court decided that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to possess firearms, even if they are not part of a militia, and to use them for self-defense and protection.
M - Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
D - Stevens, Breyer, Souter, Ginsberg

Opinion:
Some of the Court's basis for the decision came from the text of the Second Amendment, stating that the amendment allows individuals the right to bear arms. However, I disagee in that the beginning clause states, "A well regualted militia being necessary to the security of a free State". The Amendment only then proceeds to say, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The way I see it, that beginning clause sets the circumstances for when the people are allowed to keep and bear their arms. Thus, I disagree with the Court's general ruling.
However, if I were to be persuaded to accept that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to privately keep and bear arms, then I would fully agree with the Court in that it is unlawful to pass legislation requiring the handgun to be kept disassembled, because of practicality. Yet I do believe the handgun should be kept locked up and unloaded, to prevent accidents or impulsive activity, but the disassembled requirement is pushing it too far.