District of Columbia v. Heller 

Background- 

Heller applied for an hand gun permit but was denied. They stated that the second amendment gave citizens the right to own these guns given that they would be used for self defense and hunting purposes. This allowed citizens to be able to participate in militias so that the people (non gov) would be given a reasonable amount of power to eliminate a potential tyrannical government. This case also helped to decide whether the individual had the right to carry a fire arm for personal self defense instead of just militias. Determined that hand guns are considered "arms" so the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 unconstitutional. 

Issue- 

Can the second amendment be regulated to prevent individuals from owning certain "arms". If regulated does it violate the natural right to self defense. Is the people that the second amendment refers to the same as other amendments?

Decision-

5-4 in favor of Heller 
M-The right to own guns outside of a militia is legal if used for a lawful purpose , further more the right to own handguns is also protected because it is considered an "arm". 
D-Individual right only given if apart of a well regulated state militia. Not for other purposes even if they are lawful. 

Opinion-

I'm in favor of Heller because people are given the right to self defense even if they are not in a regulated state militia; therefore, if they wish to own a gun than they can legally receive one. And the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 is indeed unconstitutional because it violates the 2nd amendment right to bare arms. This act regulated the amendment and prevented people from being to to protect themselves with firearms. This is later used to help the Mcdonald v. Chicago case in figuring if the second amendment applies to the states.