District of Columbia v. Emerson was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 2001. The case involved a challenge to the District of Columbia's ban on handguns. The plaintiff, Dick Anthony Emerson, was a resident of the District of Columbia who was charged with violating the ban after he was found in possession of a handgun. Emerson argued that the ban violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Emerson, finding that the Second Amendment does protect an individual's right to bear arms. The Court held that the Second Amendment does not only protect the right to bear arms in connection with service in a militia, but also protects the right of individuals to possess firearms for self-defense. The Court also held that the District of Columbia's ban on handguns was unconstitutional. The decision in District of Columbia v. Emerson was a landmark ruling that established an individual's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. The ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving gun control laws.

In the dissenting opinion for District of Columbia v. Emerson, Justice Scalia argued that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms and not just a collective one. He stated that this interpretation was supported by both historical evidence and precedent set in other Supreme Court cases such as United States v. Miller (1939). Furthermore, he noted that even if there were some restrictions on gun ownership, they should be limited to those necessary for public safety rather than being overly broad or infringing upon individuals' rights too much. Ultimately, he concluded that the majority had erred in their decision by failing to recognize these facts and instead relying solely on policy considerations when making their ruling.