This case is related to a law in the District of Columbia that prohibits the possession of usable handguns in the home. The Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to keep and bear arms for personal use and self-defense, not just in a military context. For the purpose of enabling a well-regulated militia, the amendment ensures the right to keep and bear arms to the people, not only the militia. Laws that make firearms useless for defense are unconstitutional. However, laws governing concealed weapons, possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, carrying firearms in sensitive places, and laws that impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are still lawful under the Second Amendment.

The District of Columbia's ban on handgun possession in the home and its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for immediate self-defense violate the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects the right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. The dissenting opinion argues that the Second Amendment only protects militia-related interests and that the District of Columbia law prohibiting possession of handguns in the home does not violate the Second Amendment. The court should use a proportionality approach to evaluate gun-control regulations.

The District of Columbia's handgun law is constitutional and necessary, and the Second Amendment primarily protects the militia. The lower court may have erred in interpreting the Second Amendment. The majority's requirement for a precise colonial regulatory analogue to uphold a modern gun regulation is flawed. The lawyer dissents from the majority's decision, arguing that the District's measure is proportionate and consistent with the Second Amendment's demands, and that the majority's decision could threaten the constitutionality of gun laws throughout the United States.