Abstract
Justice Scalia's majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller rests on originalism that he has eagerly advocated for a long time. In this case, he heavily relies on historical inquiry of the language of the Second Amendment applying his own originalism to find the meaning of the article for deciding. On the one hand, this case should be appreciated and applauded for origianlists; however, on the other hand, it is severely criticized especially from the group of historians. This is due to not only that Scalia's "faint-hearted originalism" may be unprincipled or problematic but also that originalism in the present day faces a serious situation in which it may lose its characteristic as a result of theoretical progress. In this article, I try to analyze the majority opinion to clarify why these different evaluations have been raised and to inquire what occurs in originalism as well.
