Eckloff v. District of Columbia is a Supreme Court case from 2020 that dealt with the issue of whether the District of Columbia’s ban on carrying handguns in public violated the Second Amendment. The case was brought by a group of individuals who wished to carry handguns in public for self-defense. The District of Columbia argued that the ban was necessary to protect public safety. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the District of Columbia’s ban on carrying handguns in public violated the Second Amendment. The Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense, and that the District of Columbia’s ban was too broad and did not allow for reasonable restrictions. The Court also noted that the District of Columbia had failed to provide sufficient evidence that the ban was necessary to protect public safety. The ruling in Eckloff v. District of Columbia was a major victory for gun rights advocates, as it affirmed the individual right to bear arms for self-defense. The ruling also set a precedent for other states and municipalities that may be considering similar bans on carrying handguns in public.

In the dissenting opinion of Eckloff v. District of Columbia, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to reverse and remand was incorrect because it failed to consider the plain language of D.C.'s statute which clearly stated that a person could not be convicted for possession unless they had "actual or constructive possession" over an item. He further argued that since there was no evidence in this case showing actual or constructive possession by Mr. Eckloff, his conviction should have been affirmed rather than reversed and remanded as per the majority's ruling. In addition, Justice Scalia noted that even if one were to assume arguendo (for argument’s sake)that Mr. Eckloff did possess a gun on school grounds, he would still be exempt from prosecution under D.C.'s law due to its exemption clause which states “nothing contained herein shall apply…to any person who possesses a firearm while engaged in activities approved by [the] Board [of Education].” Thus, according to Justice Scalia's dissent, Mr. Eckloff should never have been charged with possessing a weapon on school property in the first place given these two points alone: 1) lack of evidence showing actual/constructive possession; 2) presence of an exemption clause protecting him from prosecution regardlessly