District of Columbia v. Heller was a court case in which Dick Heller challenged the Gun Control Regulations Act of 1975. This act was a law that prohibited the possession of handguns by any person who was not previously authorized to carry one. If authorized to carry a pistol before the law's passage, these individuals were required to re-register the handgun and keep the firearm "unloaded and disassembled, or "tied to a trigger lock or to a similar device” unless the firearm is used in a business. or “be used for a legal recreational activity.” After the law was created, people were no longer allowed to register to carry handguns, only shotguns or rifles obtained from a licensed dealer. Even those whose handguns were registered before the law, thus grandfathered in, were required to keep their firearm incapable of discharging, which would render them useless in sudden life-threatening situations. This caused some chaos, and even a major lawsuit. Dick Heller is a police officer who was allowed to carry a firearm while on duty. The reason he brought the case was because he was denied, upon his application for registration, the right to carry a handgun inside his home for his personal protection and that of his family. Under the Gun Control Act, citizens were not permitted to obtain a handgun license for personal protection in the District of Columbia. After being denied, Heller filed suit in the District of Columbia Federal Court to either revise existing laws in the District of Columbia based on the Second Amendment granting citizens the right to bear arms or to repeal the law. in its entirety. After numerous cases in local courts... middle of the newspaper... the same Court strictly used what was written in the Constitution to defend its decision. As described above, reliance on this procedure constitutes judicial deference within the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has enormous discretion when deciding cases that affect the entire population of the United States. It is astonishing to think that the opinion of a tiny sample of just nine judges possesses such great power, which can be used to make key decisions about how America will be governed. Because of their responsibility for judicial review, laws and statutes put in place can potentially be challenged in the Supreme Court and modified through judicial activism, or strengthened through judicial restraint. American citizens trust that these judges will choose which technique to use in a way that reflects what is considered good for all of America..