District of Columbia vs Heller

7/29/2019 District of Columbia vs Heller

1/75

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al.v. HELLER

certiorari to the united states court of appeas for the district of cou!"ia circuit

#o. $%&'($. Ar)ued March *+, '$$+&&Decided -une ', '$$+

District of Cou!"ia a/ "ans hand)un possession "0 !a1in) it a cri!e to carr0 an unre)istered firear!and prohi"itin) the re)istration of hand)uns2 pro3ides separate0 that no person !a0 carr0 an unicensedhand)un, "ut authori4es the poice chief to issue *&0ear icenses2 and re5uires residents to 1eep a/fu0o/ned firear!s unoaded and disse!"ed or "ound "0 a tri))er oc1 or si!iar de3ice. Respondent Heer,a D. C. specia poice!an, appied to re)ister a hand)un he /ished to 1eep at ho!e, "ut the Districtrefused. He fied this suit see1in), on Second A!end!ent )rounds, to en6oin the cit0 fro! enforcin) the

"ar on hand)un re)istration, the icensin) re5uire!ent insofar as it prohi"its carr0in) an unicensedfirear! in the ho!e, and the tri))er&oc1 re5uire!ent insofar as it prohi"its the use of functiona firear!sin the ho!e. The District Court dis!issed the suit, "ut the D. C. Circuit re3ersed, hodin) that the Second

A!end!ent protects an indi3idua7s ri)ht to possess firear!s and that the cit07s tota "an on hand)uns, as/e as its re5uire!ent that firear!s in the ho!e "e 1ept nonfunctiona e3en /hen necessar0 for sef&defense, 3ioated that ri)ht.

Held:

*. The Second A!end!ent protects an indi3idua ri)ht to possess a firear! unconnected /ith ser3ice in a!iitia, and to use that ar! for traditiona0 a/fu purposes, such as sef&defense /ithin the ho!e. 8p. '&9:.

;a< The A!end!ent7s prefator0 cause announces a purpose, "ut does not i!it or e=pand the scope of thesecond part, the operati3e cause. The operati3e cause7s te=t and histor0 de!onstrate that it connotes anindi3idua ri)ht to 1eep and "ear ar!s. 8p. '&''.

;"< The prefator0 cause co!ports /ith the Court7s interpretation of the operati3e cause. The >!iitia>co!prised a !aes ph0sica0 capa"e of actin) in concert for the co!!on defense. The Antifederaistsfeared that the Federa ?o3ern!ent /oud disar! the peope in order to disa"e this citi4ens7 !iitia,ena"in) a poitici4ed standin) ar!0 or a seect !iitia to rue. The response /as to den0 Con)ress po/erto a"rid)e the ancient ri)ht of indi3iduas to 1eep and "ear ar!s, so that the idea of a citi4ens7 !iitia

/oud "e preser3ed. 8p. ''&'+.

;c< The Court7s interpretation is confir!ed "0 anao)ous ar!s&"earin) ri)hts in state constitutions thatpreceded and i!!ediate0 foo/ed the Second A!end!ent. 8p. '+&:$.

;d< The Second A!end!ent7s draftin) histor0, /hie of du"ious interpreti3e /orth, re3eas three stateSecond A!end!ent proposas that une5ui3oca0 referred to an indi3idua ri)ht to "ear ar!s. 8p. :$&:'.

;e< Interpretation of the Second A!end!ent "0 schoars, courts and e)isators, fro! i!!ediate0 after

its ratification throu)h the ate *(th centur0 aso supports the Court7s concusion. 8p. :'&@%.

;f< #one of the Court7s precedents forecoses the Court7s interpretation. #either United States3.Cruikshank, (' U. S. 9@', 99:, norPresser3.Illinois, ** U. S. '9', '@&'9, refutes the indi3idua&ri)htsinterpretation. United States3.Miller, :$% U. S. *%@, does not i!it the ri)ht to 1eep and "ear ar!s to!iitia purposes, "ut rather i!its the t0pe of /eapon to /hich the ri)ht appies to those used "0 the!iitia, i.e., those in co!!on use for a/fu purposes. 8p. @%&9@.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=92&invol=542&pageno=553http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=116&invol=252&pageno=264http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&invol=174http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=116&invol=252&pageno=264http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&invol=174http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=92&invol=542&pageno=553


2/75

'. Li1e !ost ri)hts, the Second A!end!ent ri)ht is not uni!ited. It is not a ri)ht to 1eep and carr0 an0/eapon /hatsoe3er in an0 !anner /hatsoe3er and for /hate3er purpose For e=a!pe, conceaed/eapons prohi"itions ha3e "een uphed under the A!end!ent or state anao)ues. The Court7s opinionshoud not "e ta1en to cast dou"t on on)standin) prohi"itions on the possession of firear!s "0 feonsand the !enta0 i, or a/s for"iddin) the carr0in) of firear!s in sensiti3e paces such as schoos and)o3ern!ent "uidin)s, or a/s i!posin) conditions and 5uaifications on the co!!ercia sae of ar!s.

Miller's hodin) that the sorts of /eapons protected are those >in co!!on use at the ti!e> finds supportin the historica tradition of prohi"itin) the carr0in) of dan)erous and unusua /eapons. 8p. 9@&9.

:. The hand)un "an and the tri))er&oc1 re5uire!ent ;as appied to sef&defense< 3ioate the SecondA!end!ent. The District7s tota "an on hand)un possession in the ho!e a!ounts to a prohi"ition on anentire cass of >ar!s> that A!ericans o3er/he!in)0 choose for the a/fu purpose of sef&defense. Underan0 of the standards of scrutin0 the Court has appied to enu!erated constitutiona ri)hts, thisprohi"ition&&in the pace /here the i!portance of the a/fu defense of sef, fa!i0, and propert0 is !ostacute&&/oud fai constitutiona !uster. Si!iar0, the re5uire!ent that an0 a/fu firear! in the ho!e "edisasse!"ed or "ound "0 a tri))er oc1 !a1es it i!possi"e for citi4ens to use ar!s for the core a/fupurpose of sef&defense and is hence unconstitutiona. Because Heer conceded at ora ar)u!ent that theD. C. icensin) a/ is per!issi"e if it is not enforced ar"itrari0 and capricious0, the Court assu!es that aicense /i satisf0 his pra0er for reief and does not address the icensin) re5uire!ent. Assu!in) he is notdis5uaified fro! e=ercisin) Second A!end!ent ri)hts, the District !ust per!it Heer to re)ister his

hand)un and !ust issue hi! a icense to carr0 it in the ho!e. 8p. 9&@.

@%+ F. :d :%$, affir!ed.

Scalia, J.,dei3ered the opinion of the Court, in /hichRoberts, C. J.,andKenned, !ho"as,and#lito,JJ.,6oined.Stevens, J.,fied a dissentin) opinion, in /hichSouter, $insbur%, and&reer, JJ.,6oined.&reer, J.,fied a dissentin) opinion, in /hichStevens, Souter, and $insbur%, JJ.,6oined.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., 8ETITIO#ERS v.DIC A#THO# HELLER

on /rit of certiorari to the united states court ofappeas for the district of cou!"ia circuit

-une ', '$$+

Justice Scaliadei3ered the opinion of the Court.

e consider /hether a District of Cou!"ia prohi"ition on the possession of usa"e hand)uns in theho!e 3ioates the Second A!end!ent to the Constitution.

I

The District of Cou!"ia )enera0 prohi"its the possession of hand)uns. It is a cri!e to carr0 anunre)istered firear!, and the re)istration of hand)uns is prohi"ited. See D. C. Code GG%&'9$*.$*;*' uness the0 are ocatedin a pace of "usiness or are "ein) used for a/fu recreationa acti3ities. See G%&'9$%.$'.*
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNopinion1.1http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNopinion1.1


3/75

Respondent Dic1 Heer is a D. C. specia poice officer authori4ed to carr0 a hand)un /hie on dut0 at theFedera -udicia Center. He appied for a re)istration certificate for a hand)un that he /ished to 1eep atho!e, "ut the District refused. He thereafter fied a a/suit in the Federa District Court for the District ofCou!"ia see1in), on Second A!end!ent )rounds, to en6oin the cit0 fro! enforcin) the "ar on there)istration of hand)uns, the icensin) re5uire!ent insofar as it prohi"its the carr0in) of a firear! in theho!e /ithout a icense, and the tri))er&oc1 re5uire!ent insofar as it prohi"its the use of >functionafirear!s /ithin the ho!e.> App. 9(a. The District Court dis!issed respondent7s co!paint, seeParker3.

istrict o( Colu"bia, :** F. Supp. 'd *$:, *$( ;'$$@


4/75

i!it or e=pand the scope of the operati3e cause. See F. D/arris, A ?enera Treatise on Statutes '+&'(;8. 8otter ed. *+%*< ;hereinafter D/arrisri)ht of thepeope.> The una!ended Constitution and the Bi of Ri)hts use the phrase >ri)ht of the peope> t/o otherti!es, in the First A!end!ent7s Asse!"0&and&8etition Cause and in the Fourth A!end!ent7s Search&and&Sei4ure Cause. The #inth A!end!ent uses 3er0 si!iar ter!inoo)0 ;>The enu!eration in theConstitution, of certain ri)hts, sha not "e construed to den0 or dispara)e others retained "0 the peope>e the peope>


5/75

thin) that a !an /ears for his defence, or ta1es into his hands, or useth in /rath to cast at or stri1eanother.> * A #e/ and Co!pete La/ Dictionar0 ;*%%* !eant to >carr0.> See -ohnson **2 e"ster2 T. Sheridan, ACo!pete Dictionar0 of the En)ish Lan)ua)e ;*%(


6/75

Fro! our re3ie/ of foundin)&era sources, /e concude that this natura !eanin) /as aso the !eanin)that >"ear ar!s> had in the *+th centur0. In nu!erous instances, >"ear ar!s> /as una!"i)uous0 used torefer to the carr0in) of /eapons outside of an or)ani4ed !iitia. The !ost pro!inent e=a!pes are those!ost ree3ant to the Second A!end!ent #ine state constitutiona pro3isions /ritten in the *+th centur0or the first t/o decades of the *(th, /hich enshrined a ri)ht of citi4ens to >"ear ar!s in defense ofthe!se3es and the state> or >"ear ar!s in defense of hi!sef and the state.> +It is cear fro! thosefor!uations that >"ear ar!s> did not refer on0 to carr0in) a /eapon in an or)ani4ed !iitar0 unit.-ustice -a!es ison interpreted the 8enns03ania Constitution7s ar!s&"earin) ri)ht, for e=a!pe, as areco)nition of the natura ri)ht of defense >of one7s person or house>&&/hat he caed the a/ of >sefpreser3ation.> ' Coected or1s of -a!es ison **@', and n. = ;. Ha J M. Ha eds. '$$%< ;citin) 8a.Const., Art. IK, G'* ;*%($"ear ar!s> /as not i!ited to the carr0in) of ar!s in a!iitia.

The phrase >"ear Ar!s> aso had at the ti!e of the foundin) an idio!atic !eanin) that /as si)nificant0different fro! its natura !eanin) >to ser3e as a sodier, do !iitar0 ser3ice, fi)ht> or >to /a)e /ar.> SeeLin)uists7 Brief *+2)ost, at ** ;Stevens, -., dissentin)a)ainst,> /hich /as in turn foo/ed "0 the tar)et of the hostiities.See ' O=ford '*. ;That is ho/, for e=a!pe, our Decaration of Independence '+, used the phrase >Hehas constrained our feo/ Citi4ens ta1en Capti3e on the hi)h Seas to "ear Ar!s a)ainst theirCountr0 ... .>< E3er0 e=a!pe )i3en "0 petitioners7 a"icifor the idio!atic !eanin) of >"ear ar!s> fro!the foundin) period either incudes the preposition >a)ainst> or is not cear0 idio!atic. See Lin)uists7Brief *+&':. ithout the preposition, >"ear ar!s> nor!a0 !eant ;as it continues to !ean toda0< /hat

Justice ?insbur%7s opinion inMuscarellosaid.

In an0 e3ent, the !eanin) of >"ear ar!s> that petitioners and -ustice Stevenspropose is not eventhe;so!eti!es< idio!atic !eanin). Rather, the0 !anufacture a h0"rid definition, /here"0 >"ear ar!s>connotes the actua carr0in) of ar!s ;and therefore is not rea0 an idio!< "ut on0 in the ser3ice of anor)ani4ed !iitia. #o dictionar0 has e3er adopted that definition, and /e ha3e "een apprised of no sourcethat indicates that it carried that !eanin) at the ti!e of the foundin). But it is eas0 to see /h0 petitioners

and the dissent are dri3en to the h0"rid definition. ?i3in) >"ear Ar!s> its idio!atic !eanin) /oud causethe protected ri)ht to consist of the ri)ht to "e a sodier or to /a)e /ar&&an a"surdit0 that no co!!entatorhas e3er endorsed. See L. Le30, Ori)ins of the Bi of Ri)hts *:9 ;*(((1eep and

"ear Ar!s> /oud "e incoherent. The /ord >Ar!s> /oud ha3e t/o different !eanin)s at once >/eapons>;as the o"6ect of >1eep>< and ;as the o"6ect of >"ear>< one&haf of an idio!. It /oud "e rather i1e sa0in)>He fied and 1ic1ed the "uc1et> to !ean >He fied the "uc1et and died.> ?rotes5ue.

8etitioners 6ustif0 their i!itation of >"ear ar!s> to the !iitar0 conte=t "0 pointin) out the unre!ar1a"efact that it /as often used in that conte=t&&the sa!e !ista1e the0 !ade /ith respect to >1eep ar!s.> It isespecia0 unre!ar1a"e that the phrase /as often used in a !iitar0 conte=t in the federa e)a sources;such as records of con)ressiona de"ate< that ha3e "een the focus of petitioners7 in5uir0. Those sources

/oud ha3e had itte occasion to use it e+ce)t in discussions a"out the standin) ar!0 and the !iitia. Andthe phrases used pri!ari0 in those !iitar0 discussions incude not on0 >"ear ar!s> "ut aso >carr0

ar!s,> >possess ar!s,> and >ha3e ar!s>&&thou)h no one thin1s that those otherphrases aso had specia!iitar0 !eanin)s. See Barnett, as the Ri)ht to eep and Bear Ar!s Conditioned on Ser3ice in anOr)ani4ed Miitia, +: Te=. L. Re3. ':%, '* ;'$$@fit to "ear ar!s> incon)ressiona discussions a"out the !iitia are !atched "0 use of the sa!e phrase in the fe/ non!iitar0federa conte=ts /here the concept /oud "e ree3ant. See, e.%., :$ -ournas of Continenta Con)ress :@(&:9* ;-. Fit4patric1 ed. *(:@"ear ar!s> in non!iitar0 conte=ts.*$Cunnin)ha!7s e)a dictionar0, cited a"o3e, )a3e as an e=a!pe of its usa)e a sentence unreated to!iitar0 affairs ;>Ser3ants and a"ourers sha use "o/s and arro/s onSundas, Jc. and not "ear otherar!s> /as fre5uent0 used in non!iitar0 conte=ts.See Cra!er J Oson, hat Did >Bear Ar!s> Mean in the Second A!end!ent, ?eor)eto/n -. L. J 8u".
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNopinion1.8http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNopinion1.8http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNopinion1.9http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNopinion1.10http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNopinion1.8http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNopinion1.9http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNopinion1.10


7/75

8o70 ;forthco!in) Sept. '$$+"ear ar!s>fro! the foundin) period"ear ar!s> /as !ostfre5uent0 used in the !iitar0 conte=t. See)ost, at *'&*:, n. (2 Lin)uists7 Brief '@. Of course, as /e ha3e

said, the fact that the phrase /as co!!on0 used in a particuar conte=t does not sho/ that it is i!ited tothat conte=t, and, in an0 e3ent, /e ha3e )i3en !an0 sources /here the phrase /as used in non!iitar0conte=ts. Moreo3er, the stud07s coection appears to incude ;/ho 1no/s ho/ !an0 ti!es< the idio!aticphrase >"ear ar!s a)ainst,> /hich is irree3ant. The a"iciaso dis!iss e=a!pes such as > 7"ear ar!s ...for the purpose of 1iin) )a!e7 > "ecause those uses are >e=press0 5uaified.> Lin)uists7 Brief '@. ;Justice

Stevensuses the sa!e e=cuse for dis!issin) the state constitutiona pro3isions anao)ous to the SecondA!end!ent that identif0 pri3ate&use purposes for /hich the indi3idua ri)ht can "e asserted. See)ost, at*'.< That ana0sis is faut0. A purposi3e 5uaif0in) phrase that contradicts the /ord or phrase it !odifies isun1no/n this side of the oo1in) )ass ;e=cept, apparent0, in so!e courses on Lin)uistics"ear ar!s>!eans, as /e thin1, si!p0 the carr0in) of ar!s, a !odifier can i!it the purpose of the carria)e ;>for thepurpose of sef&defense> or >to !a1e /ar a)ainst the in)>"ear ar!s> !eans, as the petitionersand the dissent thin1, the carr0in) of ar!s on0 for !iitar0 purposes, one si!p0 cannot add >for thepurpose of 1iin) )a!e.> The ri)ht >to carr0 ar!s in the !iitia for the purpose of 1iin) )a!e> is /orth0of the !ad hatter. Thus, these purposi3e 5uaif0in) phrases positi3e0 esta"ish that >to "ear ar!s> is not

i!ited to !iitar0 use.**

Justice Stevenspaces )reat /ei)ht on -a!es Madison7s incusion of a conscientious&o"6ector cause in hisori)ina draft of the Second A!end!ent >"ut no person rei)ious0 scrupuous of "earin) ar!s, sha "eco!peed to render !iitar0 ser3ice in person.> Creatin) the Bi of Ri)hts *' ;H. eit, . Bo/in), J C.Bic1ford eds. *((*< ;hereinafter eit to refer on0 to !iitar0 ser3ice. See)ost, at '. It is a/a0sperious to deri3e the !eanin) of an adopted pro3ision fro! another pro3ision deeted in the draftin)process.*'In an0 case, /hatJustice Stevens/oud concude fro! the deeted pro3ision does not foo/. It

/as not !eant to e=e!pt fro! !iitar0 ser3ice those /ho o"6ected to )oin) to /ar "ut had no scrupesa"out persona )unfi)hts. Pua1ers opposed the use of ar!s not 6ust for !iitia ser3ice, "ut for an0 3ioentpurpose /hatsoe3er&&so !uch so that Pua1er frontiers!en /ere for"idden to use ar!s to defend theirfa!iies, e3en thou)h >in such circu!stances the te!ptation to sei4e a huntin) rife or 1nife in sef&

defense ... !ust so!eti!es ha3e "een a!ost o3er/he!in).> 8. Broc1, 8acifis! in the United States :9(;*(+a 3ioation of the constitutionari)ht of 8rotestant su"6ects to 1eep and "ear ar!s for their o/n defense.> @( The London Ma)a4ine or?ente!an7s Month0 Intei)encer @% ;*%+$


8/75

>the ri)ht of "earin) ar!s for persona defence,> !a1in) cear that no specia !iitar0 !eanin) for >1eepand "ear ar!s> /as intended in the discussion.Id., at @%&@+.*9

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause.8uttin) a of these te=tua ee!ents to)ether, /e find that the0)uarantee the indi3idua ri)ht to possess and carr0 /eapons in case of confrontation. This !eanin) isstron)0 confir!ed "0 the historica "ac1)round of the Second A!end!ent. e oo1 to this "ecause it has

a/a0s "een /ide0 understood that the Second A!end!ent, i1e the First and Fourth A!end!ents,codified a)re-e+istin%ri)ht. The 3er0 te=t of the Second A!end!ent i!picit0 reco)ni4es the pre&e=istence of the ri)ht and decares on0 that it >sha not "e infrin)ed.> As /e said in United States3.Cruikshank, (' U. S. 9@', 99:;*+%this is not a ri)ht )ranted "0 the Constitution. #either is it in an0!anner dependent upon that instru!ent for its e=istence. The Second a!end!ent decares that it shanot "e infrin)ed ... .>*

Bet/een the Restoration and the ?orious Re3oution, the Stuart in)s Chares II and -a!es II succeededin usin) seect !iitias o0a to the! to suppress poitica dissidents, in part "0 disar!in) their opponents.See -. Maco!, To eep and Bear Ar!s :*&9: ;*((@< ;hereinafter Maco! is a >i!itation upon the po/er ofparia!ent> as /ei"ertarian poiticaprincipes,> not as !e!"ers of a fi)htin) force. Sch/oerer, Decaration of Ri)hts, at '+:2 see aso id., at

%+2 ?. -eine1, The Decaration of the Ri)hts of Man and of Citi4ens @(, and n. % ;*($*< ;reprinted *(%(constituted the pree!inent authorit0 onEn)ish a/ for the foundin) )eneration,>#lden3.Maine,9'% U. S. %$, %*9;*((( id., at *:(, and >the ri)ht of ha3in) and usin)ar!s for sef&preser3ation and defence,> id., at *@$2 see aso : id., at '&@ ;*%+it is a natura ri)ht /hich thepeope ha3e reser3ed to the!se3es, confir!ed "0 the Bi of Ri)hts, to 1eep ar!s for their o/n defence.>

A -ourna of the Ti!es Mar. *%, #e/ or1 -ourna, Supp. *, Apr. *:, *%(, in Boston Under Miitar0 Rue%( ;O. Dic1erson ed. *(:


9/75

Sa!ue Ada!s '(( ;H. Cushin) ed. *(+ri)ht of sef&preser3ation> as per!ittin) a citi4en to >repe force

"0 force> /hen >the inter3ention of societ0 in his "ehaf, !a0 "e too ate to pre3ent an in6ur0.> *Bac1stone7s Co!!entaries *@9&*@, n. @' ;*+$:< ;hereinafter Tuc1er7s Bac1stone Thatdefinition co!ports /ith foundin)&era sources. See, e.%., e"ster ;>The !iitia of a countr0 are the a"e

"odied !en or)ani4ed into co!panies, re)i!ents and "ri)ades ... and re5uired "0 a/ to attend !iitar0e=ercises on certain da0s on0, "ut at other ti!es eft to pursue their usua occupations>pro3ide for cain) forth the !iitia,> G+, c. *92 and thepo/er not to create, "ut to >or)ani4e> it&&and not to or)ani4e >a> !iitia, /hich is /hat one /oud e=pectif the !iitia /ere to "e a federa creation, "ut to or)ani4e >the> !iitia, connotin) a "od0 aread0 ine=istence, ibid., c. *. This is fu0 consistent /ith the ordinar0 definition of the !iitia as a a"e&"odied!en. Fro! that poo, Con)ress has penar0 po/er to or)ani4e the units that /i !a1e up an effecti3efi)htin) force. That is /hat Con)ress did in the first !iitia Act, /hich specified that >each and e3er0 freea"e&"odied /hite !ae citi4en of the respecti3e states, resident therein, /ho is or sha "e of the a)e ofei)hteen 0ears, and under the a)e of fort0&fi3e 0ears ;e=cept as is herein after e=cepted< sha se3era0 andrespecti3e0 "e enroed in the !iitia.> Act of Ma0 +, *%(', * Stat. '%*. To "e sure, Con)ress need notconscript e3er0 a"e&"odied !an into the !iitia, "ecause nothin) in Artice I su))ests that in e=ercisin)its po/er to or)ani4e, discipine, and ar! the !iitia, Con)ress !ust focus upon the entire "od0. Athou)hthe !iitia consists of a a"e&"odied !en, the federa0 or)ani4ed !iitia !a0 consist of a su"set of the!.

Fina0, the ad6ecti3e >/e&re)uated> i!pies nothin) !ore than the i!position of proper discipine andtrainin). See -ohnson **( ;>Re)uate> >To ad6ust "0 rue or !ethod>a /e&re)uated !iitia, co!posed of the "od0of the peope, trained to ar!s>securit0 of a free state> !eant >securit0 of a free poit0,> notsecurit0 of each of the se3era States as the dissent "eo/ ar)ued, see @%+ F. :d, at @$9, and n. *$. -oseph
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&invol=174&pageno=179http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&invol=174&pageno=179http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&invol=174&pageno=179


10/75

Stor0 /rote in his treatise on the Constitution that >the /ord 7state7 is used in 3arious senses and in its!ost enar)ed sense, it !eans the peope co!posin) a particuar nation or co!!unit0.> * Stor0 G'$+2 seeaso : id., G*+($ ;in reference to the Second A!end!ent7s prefator0 cause >The !iitia is the naturadefence of a free countr0>State> ese/here in the Constitution refers toindi3idua States, "ut the phrase >securit0 of a free state> and cose 3ariations see! to ha3e "een ter!s ofart in *+th&centur0 poitica discourse, !eanin) a > 7free countr07 > or free poit0. See oo1h, >#ecessar0to the Securit0 of a Free State,> +: #otre Da!e L. Re3. *, 9 ;'$$%/hen a seect !iitia is for!ed2 the peope in )enera !a0 "e disar!ed.> 'Docu!entar0 Histor0 of the Ratification of the Constitution 9$+&9$( ;M. -ensen ed. *(%< ;hereinafterDocu!entar0 Hist.


11/75

is profound0 !ista1en. He "ases that assertion soe0 upon the proo)ue&&"ut that can on0 sho/ thatsef&defense had itte to do /ith the ri)ht7s codi(ication4it /as the central co")onentof the ri)ht itsef.

Besides i)norin) the historica reait0 that the Second A!end!ent /as not intended to a0 do/n a >no3eprincipe> "ut rather codified a ri)ht >inherited fro! our En)ish ancestors,>Robertson3.&ald5in, *9U. S. '%9, '+*;*+(%That the peope ha3e a ri)ht to "ear ar!s, forthe defence of the State ... .> Decaration of Ri)hts GKII, in id., at '%+%, '%++. This coud pausi"0 "eread to support on0 a ri)ht to "ear ar!s in a !iitia&&"ut that is a pecuiar /a0 to !a1e the point in a

constitution that ese/here repeated0 !entions the !iitia e=picit0. See GG*@, *+, :9, in 9 id.,'%+(,'%(*, '%(:. Man0 coonia statutes re5uired indi3idua ar!s&"earin) for pu"ic&safet0 reasons&&such asthe *%%$ ?eor)ia a/ that >for the securit0 and de(ence o( this )rovincefro! interna dan)ers andinsurrections> re5uired those !en /ho 5uaified for !iitia dut0 indi3idua0 >to carr0 fire ar!s> >topaces of pu"ic /orship.> *( Coonia Records of the State of ?eor)ia *:%&*:( ;A. Cander ed. *(** ;pt. ' 8t. First, Art. KII, in : Thorpe *+++, *+('. Oncea)ain, if one )i3es narro/ !eanin) to the phrase >co!!on defence> this can "e thou)ht to i!it the ri)htto the "earin) of ar!s in a state&or)ani4ed !iitar0 force. But once a)ain the State7s hi)hest court thou)htother/ise. ritin) for the court in an *+'9 i"e case, Chief -ustice 8ar1er /rote >The i"ert0 of the press

/as to "e unrestrained, "ut he /ho used it /as to "e responsi"e in cases of its a"use2 i1e the ri)ht to 1eepfire ar!s, /hich does not protect hi! /ho uses the! for anno0ance or destruction.> Co""on5ealth3.

&landin%, '$ Mass. :$@, :*:&:*@. The anao)0 !a1es no sense if firear!s coud not "e used for an0indi3idua purpose at a. See aso ates, Hand)un 8rohi"ition and the Ori)ina Meanin) of the Second

A!end!ent, +' Mich. L. Re3. '$@, '@@ ;*(+:< ;*(th&centur0 courts ne3er read >co!!on defence> to i!itthe use of /eapons to !iitia ser3ice


12/75

Second A!end!ent anao)ue /as proposed ;unsuccessfu0< "0 Tho!as -efferson. ;It read >#o free!ansha e3er "e de"arred the use of ar!s /ithin his o/n ands or tene!ents.>*+* The 8apers of Tho!as-efferson :@@ ;-. Bo0d ed. *(9$e!"edded ... /ithin a )roup of principes that are distinct0 !iitar0 in !eanin),> such asstate!ents a"out the dan)er of standin) ar!ies.Post, at ''. But so /as the hi)h0 infuentia !inorit0proposa in 8enns03ania, 0et that proposa, /ith its reference to huntin), pain0 referred to an indi3iduari)ht. See ' Docu!entar0 Hist. '@. Other than that erroneous point,Justice Stevenshas "rou)ht for/arda"soute0 no e3idence that those proposas conferred on0 a ri)ht to carr0 ar!s in a !iitia. B0 contrast,#e/ Ha!pshire7s proposa, the 8enns03ania !inorit07s proposa, and Sa!ue Ada!s7 proposa inMassachusetts une5ui3oca0 referred to indi3idua ri)hts, as did t/o state constitutiona pro3isions at theti!e. See eit *, *% ;#e/ Ha!pshire proposa


13/75

conceptions of the ri)ht to 1eep and "ear ar!s. That si!p0 does not co!port /ith our on)standin) 3ie/that the Bi of Ri)hts codified 3enera"e, /ide0 understood i"erties.

D

e no/ address ho/ the Second A!end!ent /as interpreted fro! i!!ediate0 after its ratification

throu)h the end of the *(th centur0. Before proceedin), ho/e3er, /e ta1e issue /ithJustice Stevens7e5uatin) of these sources /ith postenact!ent e)isati3e histor0, a co!parison that "etra0s a funda!enta!isunderstandin) of a court7s interpreti3e tas1. See )ost, at '%, n. '+. >Le)isati3e histor0,> of course,refers to the pre&enact!ent state!ents of those /ho drafted or 3oted for a a/2 it is considered persuasi3e

"0 so!e, not "ecause the0 refect the )enera understandin) of the disputed ter!s, "ut "ecause thee)isators /ho heard or read those state!ents presu!a"0 3oted /ith that understandin).Ibid.>8ostenact!ent e)isati3e histor0,> ibid.,a deprecator0 contradiction in ter!s, refers to state!ents ofthose /ho drafted or 3oted for the a/ that are !ade after its enact!ent and hence coud ha3e had noeffect on the con)ressiona 3ote. It !ost certain0 does not refer to the e=a!ination of a 3ariet0 of e)aand other sources to deter!ine the )ublic understandin%of a e)a te=t in the period after its enact!entor ratification. That sort of in5uir0 is a critica too of constitutiona interpretation. As /e /i sho/,

3irtua0 a interpreters of the Second A!end!ent in the centur0 after its enact!ent interpreted thea!end!ent as /e do.

1. Postratification Commentar

Three i!portant foundin)&era e)a schoars interpreted the Second A!end!ent in pu"ished /ritin)s.A three understood it to protect an indi3idua ri)ht unconnected /ith !iitia ser3ice.

St. ?eor)e Tuc1er7s 3ersion of Bac1stone7s Co!!entaries, as /e e=pained a"o3e, concei3ed of theBac1stonian ar!s ri)ht as necessar0 for sef&defense. He e5uated that ri)ht, a"sent the rei)ious andcass&"ased restrictions, /ith the Second A!end!ent. See ' Tuc1er7s Bac1stone *@:. In #ote D, entited,>ie/ of the Constitution of the United States,> Tuc1er ea"orated on the Second A!end!ent >This !a0

"e considered as the true paadiu! of i"ert0 ... . The ri)ht to sef&defence is the first a/ of nature in!ost )o3ern!ents it has "een the stud0 of ruers to confine the ri)ht /ithin the narro/est i!its possi"e.

here3er standin) ar!ies are 1ept up, and the ri)ht of the peope to 1eep and "ear ar!s is, under an0

coour or prete=t /hatsoe3er, prohi"ited, i"ert0, if not aread0 annihiated, is on the "rin1 of destruction.>* id.,at App. :$$ ;eipsis in ori)ina1eepin) a )un or other en)ine for the destruction of )a!e.>Ibid2 see aso ' id., at *@:, andnn. @$ and @*. He ater )rouped the ri)ht /ith so!e of the indi3idua ri)hts incuded in the First

A!end!ent and said that if >a a/ "e passed "0 con)ress, prohi"itin)> an0 of those ri)hts, it /oud >"ethe pro3ince of the 6udiciar0 to pronounce /hether an0 such act /ere constitutiona, or not2 and if not, toac5uit the accused ... .> *id., at App. :9%. It is uni1e0 that Tuc1er /as referrin) to a person7s "ein)>accused> of 3ioatin) a a/ !a1in) it a cri!e to "ear ar!s in a state !iitia.*(

In *+'9, iia! Ra/e, a pro!inent a/0er /ho had "een a !e!"er of the 8enns03ania Asse!"0 thatratified the Bi of Ri)hts, pu"ished an infuentia treatise, /hich ana04ed the Second A!end!ent asfoo/s

>The first principe is a decaration that a /e re)uated !iitia is necessar0 to the securit0 of a free

state2 a proposition fro! /hich fe/ /i dissent... .

>The coroar0, fro! the first position is, that the ri)ht of the peope to 1eep and "ear ar!s sha not "e

infrin)ed.


14/75

>The prohi"ition is )enera. #o cause in the constitution coud "0 an0 rue of construction "e concei3ed to

)i3e to con)ress a po/er to disar! the peope. Such a fa)itious atte!pt coud on0 "e !ade under so!e

)enera pretence "0 a state e)isature. But if in an0 "ind pursuit of inordinate po/er, either shoud

atte!pt it, this a!end!ent !a0 "e appeaed to as a restraint on "oth.> Ra/e *'*&*''.'$

Li1e Tuc1er, Ra/e re)arded the En)ish )a!e a/s as 3ioatin) the ri)ht codified in the SecondA!end!ent. See id., *''&*':. Ra/e cear0 differentiated "et/een the peope7s ri)ht to "ear ar!s andtheir ser3ice in a !iitia >In a peope per!itted and accusto!ed to "ear ar!s, /e ha3e the rudi!ents of a!iitia, /hich proper0 consists of ar!ed citi4ens, di3ided into !iitar0 "ands, and instructed at east inpart, in the use of ar!s for the purposes of /ar.>Id., at *@$. Ra/e further said that the Second

A!end!ent ri)ht ou)ht not >"e a"used to the distur"ance of the pu"ic peace,> such as "0 asse!"in)/ith other ar!ed indi3iduas >for an una/fu purpose>&&state!ents that !a1e no sense if the ri)ht doesnot e=tend to an indi3idua purpose.

-oseph Stor0 pu"ished his fa!ous Co!!entaries on the Constitution of the United Statesin *+::.Justice Stevenssu))ests that >there is not so !uch as a /hisper> in Stor07s e=panation of the SecondA!end!ent that fa3ors the indi3idua&ri)hts 3ie/.Post, at :@. That is /ron). Stor0 e=pained that the

En)ish Bi of Ri)hts had aso incuded a >ri)ht to "ear ar!s,> a ri)ht that, as /e ha3e discussed, hadnothin) to do /ith !iitia ser3ice. : Stor0 G*+9+. He then e5uated the En)ish ri)ht /ith the SecondA!end!ent

>G*+(*. A si!iar pro3ision to the Second A!end!ent in fa3our of protestants ;for to the! it is

confined< is to "e found in the "i of ri)hts of *++, it "ein) decared, 7that the su"6ects, /hich are

protestants, !a0 ha3e ar!s for their defence suita"e to their condition, and as ao/ed "0 a/.7 But under

3arious pretences the effect of this pro3ision has "een )reat0 narro/ed2 and it is at present in En)and

!ore no!ina than rea, as a defensi3e pri3ie)e.> ;Footnotes o!itted.the passa)e fro!Stor0, sho/s cear0 that this ri)ht /as intended ... and /as )uaranteed to, and to "e e=ercised anden6o0ed "0 the citi4en as such, and not "0 hi! as a sodier, or in defense soe0 of his poitica ri)hts.>

#ndre5s3.State, 9$ Tenn. *9, *+: ;*+%*the ri)ht to 1eep and "ear ar!s, aso i!pies the

ri)ht to use the! if necessar0 in sef defence2 /ithout this ri)ht to use the )uarant0 /oud ha3e hard0"een /orth the paper it consu!ed.> A Treatise on the Unconstitutionait0 of A!erican Sa3er0 **%&**+;*+@(Beedin) ansas> confict, Chares Su!nerprocai!ed

>The rife has e3er "een the co!panion of the pioneer and, under ?od, his tutear0 protector a)ainst the

red !an and the "east of the forest. #e3er /as this efficient /eapon !ore needed in 6ust sef&defence,


15/75

than no/ in ansas, and at east one artice in our #ationa Constitution !ust "e "otted out, "efore the

co!pete ri)ht to it can in an0 /a0 "e i!peached. And 0et such is the !adness of the hour, that, in

defiance of the soe!n )uarantee, e!"odied in the A!end!ents to the Constitution, that 7the ri)ht of the

peope to 1eep and "ear ar!s sha not "e infrin)ed,7 the peope of ansas ha3e "een arrai)ned for

1eepin) and "earin) the!, and the Senator fro! South Caroina has had the face to sa0 open0, on this

foor, that the0 shoud "e disar!ed&&of course, that the fanatics of Sa3er0, his aies and constituents, !a0

!eet no i!pedi!ent.> The Cri!e A)ainst ansas, Ma0 *(&'$, *+9, in A!erican Speeches 8oitica

Orator0 fro! the Re3oution to the Ci3i ar 99:, $&$% ;'$$ B. Oi3er, The Ri)hts ofan A!erican Citi4en *%% ;*+:'

Man0 ear0 *(th&centur0 state cases indicated that the Second A!end!ent ri)ht to "ear ar!s /as anindi3idua ri)ht unconnected to !iitia ser3ice, thou)h su"6ect to certain restrictions. A ir)inia case in*+'@ hodin) that the Constitution did not e=tend to free "ac1s e=pained that >nu!erous restrictionsi!posed on "ac1s in our Statute Boo1, !an0 of /hich are inconsistent /ith the etter and spirit of theConstitution, "oth of this State and of the United States as respects the free /hites, de!onstrate, that,here, those instru!ents ha3e not "een considered to e=tend e5ua0 to "oth casses of our popuation. e

/i on0 instance the restriction upon the !i)ration of free "ac1s into this State, and upon their ri)ht to"ear ar!s.>#ldrid%e3. Co""on5ealth, ' a. Cas. @@%, @@( ;?en. Ct.dan)erous popuation,> >a/s ha3e "een passed to pre3enttheir !i)ration into this State2 to !a1e it una/fu for the! to "ear ar!s2 to )uard e3en their rei)iousasse!"a)es /ith pecuiar /atchfuness>


16/75

Sheldon, in 9 Transactions of the Supre!e Court of the Territor0 of Michi)an ::%, :@ ;. Bu!e ed.*(@$< ;hereinafter Bu!euna/fu or un6ustifia"e purpose,> "ut an0 non!iitar0 purpose /hatsoe3er.

In6unn3.State, * ?a. '@:, '9* ;*+@naturalri)ht of sef&defence> and therefore struc1 do/n a "an on carr0in) pistos open0.Its opinion perfect0 captured the /a0 in /hich the operati3e cause of the Second A!end!ent furthersthe purpose announced in the prefator0 cause, in continuit0 /ith the En)ish ri)ht

>The ri)ht of the /hoe peope, od and 0oun), !en, /o!en and "o0s, and not !iitia on0, to 1eep and

"ear ar"sof e3er0 description, and not such!ere0 as are used "0 the "ilitia,sha not "e in(rin%ed,

curtaied, or "ro1en in upon, in the s!aest de)ree2 and a this for the i!portant end to "e attained the

rearin) up and 5uaif0in) a /e&re)uated !iitia, so 3ita0 necessar0 to the securit0 of a free State. Our

opinion is, that an0 a/, State or Federa, is repu)nant to the Constitution, and 3oid, /hich contra3enes

this ri%ht,ori)ina0 "eon)in) to our forefathers, tra!ped under foot "0 Chares I. and his t/o /ic1ed

sons and successors, re&esta"ished "0 the re3oution of *++, con3e0ed to this and of i"ert0 "0 the

coonists, and fina0 incorporated conspicuous0 in our o/n Ma)na ChartaQ>

Li1e/ise, inState3. Chandler, 9 La. Ann. @+(, @($ ;*+9$This is the ri)ht )uaranteed "0 the Constitution of the UnitedStates, and /hich is cacuated to incite !en to a !an0 and no"e defence of the!se3es, if necessar0, andof their countr0, /ithout an0 tendenc0 to secret ad3anta)es and un!an0 assassinations.>

Those /ho "eie3e that the Second A!end!ent preser3es on0 a !iitia&centered ri)ht pace )reat reianceon the Tennessee Supre!e Court7s *+@$ decision in#"ette3.State, '* Tenn. *9@. The case does notstand for that "road proposition2 in fact, the case does not !ention the /ord >!iitia> at a, e=cept in its5uotin) of the Second A!end!ent.#"ette hed that the state constitutiona )uarantee of the ri)ht to

>"ear> ar!s did not prohi"it the "annin) of conceaed /eapons. The opinion first reco)ni4ed that "oth thestate ri)ht and the federa ri)ht /ere descendents of the *+( En)ish ri)ht, "ut ;erroneous0, andcontrar0 to 3irtua0 a other authorities< read that ri)ht to refer on0 to >protection of the pu"ic i"ert0>and >1eepin) in a/e those in po/er,> id., at *9+. The court then adopted a sort of !idde position,

/here"0 citi4ens /ere per!itted to carr0 ar!s open0, unconnected /ith an0 ser3ice in a for!a !iitia,"ut /ere )i3en the ri)ht to use the! on0 for the !iitar0 purpose of "andin) to)ether to oppose t0rann0.This odd readin) of the ri)ht is, to "e sure, not the one /e adopt&&"ut it is not petitioners7 readin) either.More i!portant0, se3en 0ears earier the Tennessee Supre!e Court had treated the state constitutionapro3ision as conferrin) a ri)ht >of a the free citi4ens of the State to 1eep and "ear ar!s for their defence,>

Si")son,9 er., at :$2 and '* 0ears ater the court hed that the >1eep> portion of the state constitutionari)ht incuded the ri)ht to persona sef&defense >The ri)ht to 1eep ar!s in3o3es, necessari0, the ri)htto use such ar!s for a the ordinar0 purposes, and in a the ordinar0 !odes usua in the countr0, and to

/hich ar!s are adapted, i!ited "0 the duties of a )ood citi4en in ti!es of peace.>#ndre5s, 9$ Tenn., at*%+2 see aso ibid. ;e5uatin) state pro3ision /ith Second A!end!ent


17/75

ear0 *(th centur0 faced a /idespread effort to i!it ar!s o/nership "0 a ar)e nu!"er of citi4ens2 theirunderstandin) of the ori)ins and continuin) si)nificance of the A!end!ent is instructi3e.

Bac1s /ere routine0 disar!ed "0 Southern States after the Ci3i ar. Those /ho opposed thesein6ustices fre5uent0 stated that the0 infrin)ed "ac1s7 constitutiona ri)ht to 1eep and "ear ar!s.#eedess to sa0, the cai! /as not that "ac1s /ere "ein) prohi"ited fro! carr0in) ar!s in an or)ani4ed

state !iitia. A Report of the Co!!ission of the Freed!en7s Bureau in *+ stated pain0 >The ci3i a/of entuc10 prohi"its the coored !an fro! "earin) ar!s. . . . Their ar!s are ta1en fro! the! "0 theci3i authorities... . Thus, the ri)ht of the peope to 1eep and "ear ar!s as pro3ided in the Constitution isin(rin%ed.> H. R. E=ec. Doc. #o. %$, :(th Con)., *st Sess., '::, ':. A 6oint con)ressiona Report decried

>in so!e parts of South Caroina, ar!ed parties are, /ithout proper authorit0, en)a)ed in sei4in) a

fire&ar!s found in the hands of the free!en. Such conduct is in cear and direct 3ioation of their persona

ri)hts as )uaranteed "0 the Constitution of the United States, /hich decares that 7the ri)ht of the peope

to 1eep and "ear ar!s sha not "e infrin)ed.7 The freed!en of South Caroina ha3e sho/n "0 their

peacefu and order0 conduct that the0 can safe0 "e trusted /ith fire&ar!s, and the0 need the! to 1i

)a!e for su"sistence, and to protect their crops fro! destruction "0 "irds and ani!as.> -oint Co!!. onReconstruction, H. R. Rep. #o. :$, :(th Con)., *st Sess., pt. ', p. ''( ;*+< ;8roposed Circuar of

Bri)adier ?enera R. Sa=tona !en, /ithoutdistinction of coor, ha3e the ri)ht to 1eep and "ear ar!s to defend their ho!es, fa!iies or the!se3es.>Ha"roo1 *(.

Con)ress enacted the Freed!en7s Bureau Act on -u0 *, *+. Section *@ stated

>The ri)ht ... to ha3e fu and e5ua "enefit of a a/s and proceedin)s concernin) persona i"ert0,

persona securit0, and the ac5uisition, en6o0!ent, and disposition of estate, rea and persona, incudin)

the constitutiona ri)ht to "ear ar!s, sha "e secured to and en6o0ed "0 a the citi4ens ... /ithout respect

to race or coor, or pre3ious condition of sa3er0... . > *@ Stat. *%&*%%.

The understandin) that the Second A!end!ent )a3e freed "ac1s the ri)ht to 1eep and "ear ar!s /asrefected in con)ressiona discussion of the "i, /ith e3en an opponent of it sa0in) that the foundin))eneration >/ere for e3er0 !an "earin) his ar!s a"out hi! and 1eepin) the! in his house, his caste, forhis o/n defense.> Con). ?o"e, :(th Con)., *st Sess., :', :%* ;*+< ;Sen. Da3isSection ei)ht is intended to enforce the /e&1no/n

constitutiona pro3ision )uaranteein) the ri)ht of the citi4en to 71eep and "ear ar!s,7 and pro3ides that/hoe3er sha ta1e a/a0, "0 force or 3ioence, or "0 threats and inti!idation, the ar!s and /eapons /hichan0 person !a0 ha3e for his defense, sha "e dee!ed )uit0 of arcen0 of the sa!e.> H. R. Rep. #o. :%,@*st Con)., :d Sess., pp. %&+ ;*+%* >safe)uards of i"ert0 ... under the Constitution> a !an7s>ri)ht to "ear ar!s for the defense of hi!sef and fa!i0 and his ho!estead.> Con). ?o"e, :(th Con)., *stSess., **+' ;*+


18/75

It /as pain0 the understandin) in the post&Ci3i ar Con)ress that the Second A!end!ent protected anindi3idua ri)ht to use ar!s for sef&defense.

(. PostCivil !ar Commentators.

E3er0 ate&*(th&centur0 e)a schoar that /e ha3e read interpreted the Second A!end!ent to secure an

indi3idua ri)ht unconnected /ith !iitia ser3ice. The !ost fa!ous /as the 6ud)e and professor Tho!asCooe0, /ho /rote a !assi3e0 popuar *++ Treatise on Constitutiona Li!itations. Concernin) theSecond A!end!ent it said

>A!on) the other defences to persona i"ert0 shoud "e !entioned the ri)ht of the peope to 1eep and

"ear ar!s... . The aternati3e to a standin) ar!0 is 7a /e&re)uated !iitia,7 "ut this cannot e=ist uness

the peope are trained to "earin) ar!s. Ho/ far it is in the po/er of the e)isature to re)uate this ri)ht,

/e sha not underta1e to sa0, as happi0 there has "een 3er0 itte occasion to discuss that su"6ect "0 the

courts.>Id.,at :9$.

That Cooe0 understood the ri)ht not as connected to !iitia ser3ice, "ut as securin) the !iitia "0ensurin) a popuace fa!iiar /ith ar!s, is !ade e3en cearer in his *++$ /or1, ?enera 8rincipes ofConstitutiona La/. The Second A!end!ent, he said, >/as adopted /ith so!e !odification andenar)e!ent fro! the En)ish Bi of Ri)hts of *++, /here it stood as a protest a)ainst ar"itrar0 action ofthe o3erturned d0nast0 in disar!in) the peope.>Id., at '%$. In a section entited >The Ri)ht in ?enera,>he continued

>It !i)ht "e supposed fro! the phraseoo)0 of this pro3ision that the ri)ht to 1eep and "ear ar!s /as

on0 )uaranteed to the !iitia2 "ut this /oud "e an interpretation not /arranted "0 the intent. The

!iitia, as has "een ese/here e=pained, consists of those persons /ho, under the a/, are ia"e to the

perfor!ance of !iitar0 dut0, and are officered and enroed for ser3ice /hen caed upon. But the a/

!a0 !a1e pro3ision for the enro!ent of a /ho are fit to perfor! !iitar0 dut0, or of a s!a nu!"eron0, or it !a0 /ho0 o!it to !a1e an0 pro3ision at a2 and if the ri)ht /ere i!ited to those enroed, the

purpose of this )uarant0 !i)ht "e defeated ato)ether "0 the action or ne)ect to act of the )o3ern!ent it

/as !eant to hod in chec1. The !eanin) of the pro3ision undou"ted0 is, that the peope, fro! /ho! the

!iitia !ust "e ta1en, sha ha3e the ri)ht to 1eep and "ear ar!s2 and the0 need no per!ission or

re)uation of a/ for the purpose. But this ena"es )o3ern!ent to ha3e a /e&re)uated !iitia2 for to "ear

ar!s i!pies so!ethin) !ore than the !ere 1eepin)2 it i!pies the earnin) to hande and use the! in a

/a0 that !a1es those /ho 1eep the! read0 for their efficient use2 in other /ords, it i!pies the ri)ht to

!eet for 3ountar0 discipine in ar!s, o"ser3in) in doin) so the a/s of pu"ic order.>Id., at '%*.

A other post&Ci3i ar *(th&centur0 sources /e ha3e found concurred /ith Cooe0. One e=a!pe fro!each decade /i con3e0 the )enera fa3or

>The purpose of the Second A!end!ent is to secure a /e&ar!ed !iitia... . But a !iitia /oud "e

useess uness the citi4ens /ere ena"ed to e=ercise the!se3es in the use of /ari1e /eapons. To preser3e

this pri3ie)e, and to secure to the peope the a"iit0 to oppose the!se3es in !iitar0 force a)ainst the


19/75

usurpations of )o3ern!ent, as /e as a)ainst ene!ies fro! /ithout, that )o3ern!ent is for"idden "0 an0

a/ or proceedin) to in3ade or destro0 the ri)ht to 1eep and "ear ar!s... . The cause is anao)ous to the

one securin) the freedo! of speech and of the press. Freedo!, not icense, is secured2 the fair use, not the

i"eous a"use, is protected.> -. 8o!ero0, An Introduction to the Constitutiona La/ of the United States

*9'&*9: ;*++< ;hereinafter 8o!ero0As the Constitution of the United States, and the constitutions of se3era of the states, in ter!s !ore or

ess co!prehensi3e, decare the ri)ht of the peope to 1eep and "ear ar!s, it has "een a su"6ect of )ra3e

discussion, in so!e of the state courts, /hether a statute prohi"itin) persons, /hen not on a 6ourne0, or as

tra3eers, fro! 5earin% or carrin% concealed 5ea)ons, "e constitutiona. There has "een a )reat

difference of opinion on the 5uestion.> ' -. ent, Co!!entaries on A!erican La/ :@$, n. ' ;O. Ho!es

ed., *'th ed. *+%:< ;hereinafter entSo!e )enera 1no/ed)e of firear!s is i!portant to the pu"ic /efare2 "ecause it /oud "e i!possi"e,in case of /ar, to or)ani4e pro!pt0 an efficient force of 3ounteers uness the peope had so!e fa!iiarit0

/ith /eapons of /ar. The Constitution secures the ri)ht of the peope to 1eep and "ear ar!s. #o dou"t, a

citi4en /ho 1eeps a )un or pisto under 6udicious precautions, practices in safe paces the use of it, and in

due ti!e teaches his sons to do the sa!e, e=ercises his indi3idua ri)ht. #o dou"t, a person /hose

residence or duties in3o3e pecuiar peri !a0 1eep a pisto for prudent sef&defence.> B. A""ott, -ud)e and

-ur0 A 8opuar E=panation of the Leadin) Topics in the La/ of the Land ::: ;*++$< ;hereinafter

A""ottThe ri)ht to "ear ar!s has a/a0s "een the distincti3e pri3ie)e of free!en. Aside fro! an0 necessit0 ofsef&protection to the person, it represents a!on) a nations po/er couped /ith the e=ercise of a certain

6urisdiction. ... It /as not necessar0 that the ri)ht to "ear ar!s shoud "e )ranted in the Constitution, for

it had a/a0s e=isted.> -. Ordronau=, Constitutiona Le)isation in the United States '@*&'@' ;*+(*is not a ri)ht )ranted "0 the Constitution or in an0 !anner dependent upon that instru!ent for itse=istence. The second a!end!ent ... !eans no !ore than that it sha not "e infrin)ed "0 Con)ress.>('U. S., at 99:.States, /e said, /ere free to restrict or protect the ri)ht under their poice po/ers. Thei!ited discussion of the Second A!end!ent in Cruikshanksupports, if an0thin), the indi3idua&ri)htsinterpretation. There /as no cai! in Cruikshankthat the 3icti!s had "een depri3ed of their ri)ht to carr0ar!s in a !iitia2 indeed, the ?o3ernor had dis"anded the oca !iitia unit the 0ear "efore the !o"7sattac1, see C. Lane, The Da0 Freedo! Died ' ;'$$+ 7"earin) ar!s for a a/fu purpose7 >''and said that >the peope !ust oo1 for their
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=92&invol=542http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=92&invol=542http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=92&page=553http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=92&page=553http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=92&page=553http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNopinion1.22http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNopinion1.22http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=92&invol=542http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=92&page=553http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=92&page=553http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNopinion1.22


20/75

protection a)ainst an0 3ioation "0 their feo/&citi4ens of the ri)hts it reco)ni4es> to the States7 poicepo/er.(' U. S., at 99:.That discussion !a1es itte sense if it is on0 a ri)ht to "ear ar!s in a state!iitia.':

Presser3.Illinois,** U. S. '9';*++e3en if the te=tua and historica ar)u!ents on "oth side of the issue

/ere e3en0 "aanced, respect for the /e&setted 3ie/s of a of our predecessors on this Court, and forthe rue of a/ itsef ... /oud pre3ent !ost 6urists fro! endorsin) such a dra!atic uphea3a in the a/,>

)ost, at @. And /hat is, accordin) toJustice Stevens, the hodin) ofMiller that de!ands such o"eisanceThat the Second A!end!ent >protects the ri)ht to 1eep and "ear ar!s for certain !iitar0 purposes, "utthat it does not curtai the e)isature7s po/er to re)uate the non!iitar0 use and o/nership of /eapons.>

Post, at '.

#othin) so cear0 de!onstrates the /ea1ness ofJustice Stevens7 case.Miller did not hod that andcannot possi"0 "e read to ha3e hed that. The 6ud)!ent in the case uphed a)ainst a Second A!end!entchaen)e t/o !en7s federa con3ictions for transportin) an unre)istered short&"arreed shot)un ininterstate co!!erce, in 3ioation of the #ationa Firear!s Act, @+ Stat. *':. It is entire0 cear that theCourt7s "asis for sa0in) that the Second A!end!ent did not app0 /as not that the defendants /ere

>"earin) ar!s> not >for ... !iitar0 purposes> "ut for >non!iitar0 use,>)ost, at '.Rather, it /as that thet)e o( 5ea)on at issue/as not ei)i"e for Second A!end!ent protection >In the a"sence of an0e3idence tendin) to sho/ that the possession or use of a short&"arreed shot)un at this ti!e has so!ereasona"e reationship to the preser3ation or efficienc0 of a /e re)uated !iitia, /e cannot sa0 that theSecond A!end!ent )uarantees the ri)ht to 1eep and "ear such an instru"ent.>:$% U. S., at *%+;e!phasis addedCertain0,> the Court continued, >it is not /ithin 6udicia notice that this /eapon is an0part of the ordinar0 !iitar0 e5uip!ent or that its use coud contri"ute to the co!!on defense.>Ibid.Be0ond that, the opinion pro3ided no e=panation of the content of the ri)ht.

This hodin) is not on0 consistent /ith, "ut positi3e0 su))ests, that the Second A!end!ent confers anindi3idua ri)ht to 1eep and "ear ar!s ;thou)h on0 ar!s that >ha3e so!e reasona"e reationship to thepreser3ation or efficienc0 of a /e re)uated !iitia>not turn on the difference "et/een !us1ets and sa/ed&off shot)uns, itturned, rather, on the "asic difference "et/een the !iitar0 and non!iitar0 use and possession of )uns,>

)ost, at @'&@:, "ut the /ords of the opinion pro3e other/ise. The !ostJustice Stevenscan pausi"0 cai!forMiller is that it decined to decide the nature of the Second A!end!ent ri)ht, despite the Soicitor?enera7s ar)u!ent ;!ade in the aternati3e< that the ri)ht /as coecti3e, see Brief for United States, O.T. *(:+, #o. (, pp. @&9.Millerstands on0 for the proposition that the Second A!end!ent ri)ht,

/hate3er its nature, e=tends on0 to certain t0pes of /eapons.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=92&page=553http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=92&page=553http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=92&page=553http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNopinion1.23http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=116&invol=252http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=116&invol=252http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&invol=174http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&invol=174http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&page=178http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&page=178http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&page=178http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=92&page=553http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNopinion1.23http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=116&invol=252http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&invol=174http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&invol=174http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&page=178


21/75

It is particuar0 /ron)headed to readMiller for !ore than /hat it said, "ecause the case did not e3enpurport to "e a thorou)h e=a!ination of the Second A!end!ent.Justice Stevenscai!s,)ost, at @', thatthe opinionreached its concusion >after re3ie/in) !an0 of the sa!e sources that are discussed at)reater en)th "0 the Court toda0.> #ot !an0, /hich /as not entire0 the Court7s faut. The respondent!ade no appearance in the case, neither fiin) a "rief nor appearin) at ora ar)u!ent2 the Court heardfro! no one "ut the ?o3ern!ent ;reason enou)h, one /oud thin1, not to !a1e that case the "e)innin)and the end of this Court7s consideration of the Second A!end!entthat at east the carr0in) of /eapons /ithout a/fuoccasion or e=cuse /as a/a0s a cri!e> and that ;"ecause of the cass&"ased restrictions and theprohi"ition on terrori4in) peope /ith dan)erous or unusua /eapons< >the ear0 En)ish a/ did not)uarantee an unrestricted ri)ht to "ear ar!s.> Brief for United States, O. T. *(:+, #o. (, at (&**. It then

/ent on to re0 pri!ari0 on the discussion of the En)ish ri)ht to "ear ar!s in#"ette3.State, '* Tenn.*9@, for the proposition that the on0 uses of ar!s protected "0 the Second A!end!ent are those thatreate to the !iitia, not sef&defense. See Brief for United States, O. T. *(:+, #o. (, at *'&*+. The finasection of the "rief reco)ni4ed that >so!e courts ha3e said that the ri)ht to "ear ar!s incudes the ri)ht ofthe indi3idua to ha3e the! for the protection of his person and propert0,> and aunched an aternati3ear)u!ent that >/eapons /hich are co!!on0 used "0 cri!inas,> such as sa/ed&off shot)uns, are notprotected. See id., at *+&'*. The ?o3ern!ent7sMiller"rief thus pro3ided scant discussion of the histor0 ofthe Second A!end!ent&&and the Court /as presented /ith no counterdiscussion. As for the te=t of the

Court7s opinion itsef, that discusses noneof the histor0 of the Second A!end!ent. It assu!es fro! theproo)ue that the A!end!ent /as desi)ned to preser3e the !iitia,:$% U. S., at *%+;/hich /e do notdisputepart of ordinar0 !iitar0 e5uip!ent> coud !ean thaton0 those /eapons usefu in /arfare are protected. That /oud "e a startin) readin) of the opinion, sinceit /oud !ean that the #ationa Firear!s Act7s restrictions on !achine)uns ;not chaen)ed inMillerordinar0!iitar0 e5uip!ent> an)ua)e !ust "e read in tande! /ith /hat co!es after >Ordinari0 /hen caed

for !iitia ser3ice a"e&"odied !en /ere e=pected to appear "earin) ar!s suppied "0 the!se3es andof the 1ind in co!!on use at the ti!e.>:$% U. S., at *%(.The traditiona !iitia /as for!ed fro! a poo of!en "rin)in) ar!s >in co!!on use at the ti!e> for a/fu purposes i1e sef&defense. >In the coonia andre3outionar0 /ar era, s!a&ar!s /eapons used "0 !iitia!en and /eapons used in defense of personand ho!e /ere one and the sa!e.>State3.Kessler, '+( Ore. :9(, :+, *@ 8. 'd (@, (+ ;*(+$< ;citin) ?.#eu!ann, S/ords and Bades of the A!erican Re3oution &*9, '9'&'9@ ;*(%:for !ost of our histor0, the
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&page=178http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&page=178http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNopinion1.24http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&page=179http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&page=179http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&page=179http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNopinion1.25http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=283&invol=697http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=283&invol=697http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=333&invol=203http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=333&invol=203http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=376&invol=254http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=376&invol=254http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&page=178http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNopinion1.24http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&page=179http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNopinion1.25http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=283&invol=697http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=333&invol=203http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=376&invol=254


22/75

in3aidit0 of Second&A!end!ent&"ased o"6ections to firear!s re)uations has "een /e setted anduncontro3ersia.> For !ost of our histor0 the 5uestion did not present itsef.

III

Li1e !ost ri)hts, the ri)ht secured "0 the Second A!end!ent is not uni!ited. Fro! Bac1stone throu)h

the *(th&centur0 cases, co!!entators and courts routine0 e=pained that the ri)ht /as not a ri)ht to 1eepand carr0 an0 /eapon /hatsoe3er in an0 !anner /hatsoe3er and for /hate3er purpose. See, e.%.,

Sheldon, in 9 Bu!e :@2 Ra/e *':2 8o!ero0 *9'&*9:2 A""ott:::. For e=a!pe, the !a6orit0 of the *(th&centur0 courts to consider the 5uestion hed that prohi"itions on carr0in) conceaed /eapons /ere a/fuunder the Second A!end!ent or state anao)ues. See, e.%.,State3. Chandler, 9 La. Ann., at @+(&@($2

6unn3.State, * ?a., at '9*2 see )enera0 ' ent :@$, n. '2 The A!erican Students7 Bac1stone +@, n. **;?. Chase ed. *++@


23/75

Fe/ a/s in the histor0 of our #ation ha3e co!e cose to the se3ere restriction of the District7s hand)un"an. And so!e of those fe/ ha3e "een struc1 do/n. In6unn3.State, the ?eor)ia Supre!e Court struc1do/n a prohi"ition on carr0in) pistos open0 ;e3en thou)h it uphed a prohi"ition on carr0in) conceaed

/eaponsA statute /hich, under the pretence of re)uatin),a!ounts to a destruction of the ri)ht, or /hich re5uires ar!s to "e so "orne as to render the! /ho0useess for the purpose of defence, /oud "e cear0 unconstitutiona>in such a !anneras to for"id the carr0in) of a firear! /ithin one7s ho!e or possessed and /ithout a icense.> App. 9(a.The Court of Appeas did not in3aidate the icensin) re5uire!ent, "ut hed on0 that the District >!a0 notpre3ent a hand)un fro! "ein) !o3ed throu)hout one7s house.> @%+ F. :d, at @$$. It then ordered theDistrict Court to enter su!!ar0 6ud)!ent >consistent /ith respondent7s pra0er for reief.>Id., at @$*.Before this Court petitioners ha3e stated that >if the hand)un "an is struc1 do/n and respondent re)istersa hand)un, he coud o"tain a icense, assu!in) he is not other/ise dis5uaified,> "0 /hich the0 apparent0!ean if he is not a feon and is not insane. Brief for 8etitioners 9+. Respondent conceded at ora ar)u!entthat he does not >ha3e a pro"e! /ith ... icensin)> and that the District7s a/ is per!issi"e so on) as it is>not enforced in an ar"itrar0 and capricious !anner.> Tr. of Ora Ar). %@&%9. e therefore assu!e thatpetitioners7 issuance of a icense /i satisf0 respondent7s pra0er for reief and do not address the icensin)re5uire!ent.

Justice &reer has de3oted !ost of his separate dissent to the hand)un "an. He sa0s that, e3en assu!in)the Second A!end!ent is a persona )uarantee of the ri)ht to "ear ar!s, the District7s prohi"ition is

3aid. He first tries to esta"ish this "0 foundin)&era historica precedent, pointin) to 3arious restricti3ea/s in the coonia period. These de!onstrate, in his 3ie/, that the District7s a/ >i!poses a "urden upon)un o/ners that see!s proportionate0 no )reater than restrictions in e=istence at the ti!e the Second

A!end!ent /as adopted.>Post, at '. Of the a/s he cites, on0 one offers e3en !ar)ina support for hisassertion. A *%+: Massachusetts a/ for"ade the residents of Boston to >ta1e into> or >recei3e into> >an0D/ein) House, Sta"e, Barn, Out&house, are&house, Store, Shop or other Buidin)> oaded firear!s,


24/75

and per!itted the sei4ure of an0 oaded firear!s that >sha "e found> there. Act of Mar. *, *%+:, ch. *:,*%+: Mass. Acts p. '*+. That statute7s te=t and its proo)ue, /hich !a1es cear that the purpose of theprohi"ition /as to ei!inate the dan)er to firefi)hters posed "0 the >depositin) of oaded Ar!s> in

"uidin)s, )i3e reason to dou"t that coonia Boston authorities /oud ha3e enforced that )eneraprohi"ition a)ainst so!eone /ho te!porari0 oaded a firear! to confront an intruder ;despite the a/7sappication in that caserestricted the firin) of )uns /ithin the cit0i!its to at east so!e de)ree> in Boston, 8hiadephia and #e/ or1.Post, at @ ;citin) Churchi, ?unRe)uation, the 8oice 8o/er, and the Ri)ht to eep Ar!s in Ear0 A!erica, '9 La/ J Hist. Re3. *:(, *';'$$%


25/75

"ecause the a/ is i!ited to an ur"an area, and "ecause there /ere so!e/hat si!iar restrictions in thefoundin) period ;a fase proposition that /e ha3e aread0 discussedinterest&"aancin)> approach. The 3er0 enu!eration of the ri)ht ta1es out of the hands of

)o3ern!ent&&e3en the Third Branch of ?o3ern!ent&&the po/er to decide on a case&"0&case "asis /hetherthe ri)ht is reall 5orthinsistin) upon. A constitutiona )uarantee su"6ect to future 6ud)es7 assess!entsof its usefuness is no constitutiona )uarantee at a. Constitutiona ri)hts are enshrined /ith the scopethe0 /ere understood to ha3e /hen the peope adopted the!, /hether or not future e)isatures or ;0es approach tothe prohi"ition of a peacefu neoa4i !arch throu)h S1o1ie. See6ational Socialist Part o( #"erica3.

Skokie,@:' U. S. @:;*(%%< 8)er curia"9. The First A!end!ent contains the freedo!&of&speech)uarantee that the peope ratified, /hich incuded e=ceptions for o"scenit0, i"e, and discosure of statesecrets, "ut not for the e=pression of e=tre!e0 unpopuar and /ron)&headed 3ie/s. The Second

A!end!ent is no different. Li1e the First, it is the 3er0)roductof an interest&"aancin) "0 the peope&&/hichJustice &reer/oud no/ conduct for the! ane/. And /hate3er ese it ea3es to future e3auation,it sure0 ee3ates a"o3e a other interests the ri)ht of a/&a"idin), responsi"e citi4ens to use ar!s indefense of hearth and ho!e.

Justice &reer chides us for ea3in) so !an0 appications of the ri)ht to 1eep and "ear ar!s in dou"t, andfor not pro3idin) e=tensi3e historica 6ustification for those re)uations of the ri)ht that /e descri"e asper!issi"e. See)ost, at @'&@:. But since this case represents this Court7s first in&depth e=a!ination ofthe Second A!end!ent, one shoud not e=pect it to carif0 the entire fied, an0 !ore thanRenolds3.United States,(+ U. S. *@9;*+%(


26/75

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., 8ETITIO#ERS v.DIC A#THO# HELLER

on /rit of certiorari to the united states court ofappeas for the district of cou!"ia circuit

-une ', '$$+

Justice Stevens,/ith /ho!Justice Souter, Justice $insbur%, andJustice &reer6oin, dissentin).

The 5uestion presented "0 this case is not /hether the Second A!end!ent protects a >coecti3e ri)ht> oran >indi3idua ri)ht.> Sure0 it protects a ri)ht that can "e enforced "0 indi3iduas. But a concusion thatthe Second A!end!ent protects an indi3idua ri)ht does not te us an0thin) a"out the scope of that ri)ht.

?uns are used to hunt, for sef&defense, to co!!it cri!es, for sportin) acti3ities, and to perfor! !iitar0duties. The Second A!end!ent pain0 does not protect the ri)ht to use a )un to ro" a "an12 it is e5ua0cear that it doesenco!pass the ri)ht to use /eapons for certain !iitar0 purposes. hether it aso

protects the ri)ht to possess and use )uns for non!iitar0 purposes i1e huntin) and persona sef&defenseis the 5uestion presented "0 this case. The te=t of the A!end!ent, its histor0, and our decision in United

States3.Miller,:$% U. S. *%@;*(:(in the a"sence of an0 e3idence tendin) to sho/ thatpossession or use of a 7shot)un ha3in) a "arre of ess than ei)hteen inches in en)th7 at this ti!e has so!ereasona"e reationship to the preser3ation or efficienc0 of a /e re)uated !iitia, /e cannot sa0 that theSecond A!end!ent )uarantees the ri)ht to 1eep and "ear such an instru!ent.>Miller, :$% U. S., at *%+.The 3ie/ of the A!end!ent /e too1 inMiller--that it protects the ri)ht to 1eep and "ear ar!s for certain!iitar0 purposes, "ut that it does not curtai the Le)isature7s po/er to re)uate the non!iitar0 use ando/nership of /eapons&&is "oth the !ost natura readin) of the A!end!ent7s te=t and the interpretation!ost faithfu to the histor0 of its adoption.

Since our decision inMiller, hundreds of 6ud)es ha3e reied on the 3ie/ of the A!end!ent /e endorsedthere2'/e ourse3es affir!ed it in *(+$. See0e5is3. United States,@@9 U. S. 99, 9&,n. + ;*(+$


27/75

decidedMiller4 and, uti!ate0, a fee"e atte!pt to distin)uishMillerthat paces !ore e!phasis on theCourt7s decisiona process than on the reasonin) in the opinion itsef.

E3en if the te=tua and historica ar)u!ents on "oth sides of the issue /ere e3en0 "aanced, respect forthe /e&setted 3ie/s of a of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rue of a/ itsef, seeMitchell3.3. !. $rant Co.,@* U. S. $$, :;*(%@< ;Ste/art, -., dissentin) The #ature of the -udicia 8rocess *@( ;*('*

Three portions of that te=t !erit specia focus the introductor0 an)ua)e definin) the A!end!ent7spurpose, the cass of persons enco!passed /ithin its reach, and the unitar0 nature of the ri)ht that itprotects.

2# 5ell re%ulated Militia, bein% necessar to the securit o( a (ree State2

The prea!"e to the Second A!end!ent !a1es three i!portant points. It identifies the preser3ation ofthe !iitia as the A!end!ent7s purpose2 it e=pains that the !iitia is necessar0 to the securit0 of a freeState2 and it reco)ni4es that the !iitia !ust "e >/e re)uated.> In a three respects it is co!para"e topro3isions in se3era State Decarations of Ri)hts that /ere adopted rou)h0 conte!poraneous0 /ith the

Decaration of Independence.9Those state pro3isions hi)hi)ht the i!portance !e!"ers of the foundin))eneration attached to the !aintenance of state !iitias2 the0 aso underscore the profound fear shared "0!an0 in that era of the dan)ers posed "0 standin) ar!ies.hie the need for state !iitias has not "een a!atter of si)nificant pu"ic interest for a!ost t/o centuries, that fact shoud not o"scure theconte!porar0 concerns that ani!ated the Fra!ers.

The paraes "et/een the Second A!end!ent and these state decarations, and the Second A!end!ent7so!ission of an0 state!ent of purpose reated to the ri)ht to use firear!s for huntin) or persona sef&defense, is especia0 stri1in) in i)ht of the fact that the Decarations of Ri)hts of 8enns03ania and

er!ont did e=press0protect such ci3iian uses at the ti!e. Artice KIII of 8enns03ania7s *%%Decaration of Ri)hts announced that >the peope ha3e a ri)ht to "ear ar!s for the defence o( the"selvesand the state,> * Sch/art4 ' ;e!phasis addedthe inha"itants ofthis state sha ha3e the i"ert0 to fo/ and hunt in seasona"e ti!es on the ands the0 hod, and on a

other ands therein not incosed,> id., at '%@. And Artice K of the *%%% er!ont Decaration of Ri)hts)uaranteed >that the peope ha3e a ri)ht to "ear ar!s for the defence o( the"selvesand the State.>Id., at:'@ ;e!phasis addedto 1eep and "ear ar!s> /as on!iitar0 uses of firear!s, /hich the0 3ie/ed in the conte=t of ser3ice in state !iitias.

The prea!"e thus "oth sets forth the o"6ect of the A!end!ent and infor!s the !eanin) of there!ainder of its te=t. Such te=t shoud not "e treated as !ere surpusa)e, for >it cannot "e presu!ed
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=416&invol=600&pageno=636http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=416&invol=600&pageno=636http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=416&invol=600&pageno=636http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.4http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.4http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.5http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.5http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.5http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.6http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=416&invol=600&pageno=636http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.4http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.5http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.6


28/75

that an0 cause in the constitution is intended to "e /ithout effect.>Marbur3.Madison, * Cranch *:%,*%@ ;*+$:find> its preferred readin) in /hatis at "est an a!"i)uous te=t, and then concudes that its readin) is not forecosed "0 the prea!"e.8erhaps the Court7s approach to the te=t is accepta"e ad3ocac0, "ut it is sure0 an unusua approach for

6ud)es to foo/.

2!he ri%ht o( the )eo)le2

The centerpiece of the Court7s te=tua ar)u!ent is its insistence that the /ords >the peope> as used in theSecond A!end!ent !ust ha3e the sa!e !eanin), and protect the sa!e cass of indi3iduas, as /hen the0

are used in the First and Fourth A!end!ents. Accordin) to the Court, in a three pro3isions&&as /e asthe Constitution7s prea!"e, section ' of Artice I, and the Tenth A!end!ent&&>the ter! una!"i)uous0refers to a !e!"ers of the poitica co!!unit0, not an unspecified su"set.>#nte, at . But the Courtitsel( reads the Second A!end!ent to protect a >su"set> si)nificant0 narro/er than the cass of personsprotected "0 the First and Fourth A!end!ents2 /hen it fina0 dris do/n on the su"stanti3e !eanin) ofthe Second A!end!ent, the Court i!its the protected cass to >a/&a"idin), responsi"e citi4ens,> ante,at :. But the cass of persons protected "0 the First and Fourth A!end!ents is notso i!ited2 for e3enfeons ;and presu!a"0 irresponsi"e citi4ens as /e< !a0 in3o1e the protections of those constitutionapro3isions. The Court offers no /a0 to har!oni4e its confictin) pronounce!ents.

The Court aso o3eroo1s the si)nificance of the /a0 the Fra!ers used the phrase >the peope> in theseconstitutiona pro3isions. In the First A!end!ent, no /ords define the cass of indi3iduas entited tospea1, to pu"ish, or to /orship2 in that A!end!ent it is on0 the ri)ht peacea"0 to asse!"e, and to

petition the ?o3ern!ent for a redress of )rie3ances, that is descri"ed as a ri)ht of >the peope.> Theseri)hts conte!pate coecti3e action. hie the ri)ht peacea"0 to asse!"e protects the indi3idua ri)htsof those persons participatin) in the asse!"0, its concern is /ith action en)a)ed in "0 !e!"ers of a)roup, rather than an0 sin)e indi3idua. Li1e/ise, athou)h the act of petitionin) the ?o3ern!ent is ari)ht that can "e e=ercised "0 indi3iduas, it is pri!ari0 coecti3e in nature. For if the0 are to "e effecti3e,petitions !ust in3o3e )roups of indi3iduas actin) in concert.

Si!iar0, the /ords >the peope> in the Second A!end!ent refer "ac1 to the o"6ect announced in theA!end!ent7s prea!"e. The0 re!ind us that it is the coecti3e action of indi3iduas ha3in) a dut0 toser3e in the !iitia that the te=t direct0 protects and, perhaps !ore i!portant0, that the uti!atepurpose of the A!end!ent /as to protect the States7 share of the di3ided so3erei)nt0 created "0 theConstitution.

As used in the Fourth A!end!ent, >the peope> descri"es the cass of persons protected fro!unreasona"e searches and sei4ures "0 ?o3ern!ent officias. It is true that the Fourth A!end!entdescri"es a ri)ht that need not "e e=ercised in an0 coecti3e sense. But that o"ser3ation does not sette the!eanin) of the phrase >the peope> /hen used in the Second A!end!ent. For, as /e ha3e seen, thephrase !eans so!ethin) 5uite different in the 8etition and Asse!"0 Causes of the First A!end!ent.

Athou)h the a"stract definition of the phrase >the peope> coud carr0 the sa!e !eanin) in the SecondA!end!ent as in the Fourth A!end!ent, the prea!"e of the Second A!end!ent su))ests that the usesof the phrase in the First and Second A!end!ents are the sa!e in referrin) to a coecti3e acti3it0. B0

/a0 of contrast, the Fourth A!end!ent descri"es a ri)ht a%ainst )o3ern!enta interference rather thanan affir!ati3e ri)ht to en)a)e in protected conduct, and so refers to a ri)ht to protect a pure0 indi3idua
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.7http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.7


29/75

interest. As used in the Second A!end!ent, the /ords >the peope> do not enar)e the ri)ht to 1eep and"ear ar!s to enco!pass use or o/nership of /eapons outside the conte=t of ser3ice in a /e&re)uated!iitia.

2!o kee) and bear #r"s2

Athou)h the Court7s discussion of these /ords treats the! as t/o >phrases>&&as if the0 read >to 1eep> and>to "ear>&&the0 descri"e a unitar0 ri)ht to possess ar!s if needed for !iitar0 purposes and to use the! incon6unction /ith !iitar0 acti3ities.

As a threshod !atter, it is /orth pausin) to note an oddit0 in the Court7s interpretation of >to 1eep and"ear ar!s.> Uni1e the Court of Appeas, the Court does not read that phrase to create a ri)ht to possessar!s for >a/fu, pri3ate purposes.>Parker3.istrict o( Colu"bia, @%+ F. :d :%$, :+' ;CADC '$$%to possess and carr0 /eapons in case ofconfrontation.>#nte, at *(. #o part0 or a"icus ur)ed this interpretation2 the Court appears to ha3efashioned it out of /hoe coth. But athou)h this no3e i!itation ac1s support in the te=t of the

A!end!ent, the A!end!ent7s te=t does6ustif0 a different i!itation the >ri)ht to 1eep and "ear ar!s>protects on0 a ri)ht to possess and use firear!s in connection /ith ser3ice in a state&or)ani4ed !iitia.

The ter! >"ear ar!s> is a fa!iiar idio!2 /hen used unadorned "0 an0 additiona /ords, its !eanin) is>to ser3e as a sodier, do !iitar0 ser3ice, fi)ht.> * O=ford En)ish Dictionar0 :@ ;'d ed. *(+(ar!s> as >/eapons of offence, or ar!our of defence,> * S. -ohnson, A Dictionar0 of theEn)ishLan)ua)e;*%99"0 ar"s, /e understand thoseinstru!ents of offence )enera0 !ade use of in /ar2 such as firear!s, s/ords, J c. B0 5ea)ons,/e !oreparticuar0 !ean instru!ents of other 1inds ;e=cusi3e of fire&ar!s * -. Truser, The Distinction Bet/een ords Estee!ed S0non0!ous in the En)ish Lan)ua)e:% ;*%(@"ear ar!s> to enco!passci3iian possession and use, the0 coud ha3e done so "0 the addition of phrases such as >for the defense ofthe!se3es,> as /as done in the 8enns03ania and er!ont Decarations of Ri)hts. The un"odi(ieduse of>"ear ar!s,> "0 contrast, refers !ost natura0 to a !iitar0 purpose, as e3idenced "0 its use in itera0

do4ens of conte!porar0 te=ts.

(

The a"sence of an0 reference to ci3iian uses of /eapons taiors the te=t ofthe A!end!ent to the purpose identified in its prea!"e.*$But /hen discussin) these /ords, the Courtsi!p0 i)nores the prea!"e.

The Court ar)ues that a >5uaif0in) phrase that contradicts the /ord or phrase it !odifies is un1no/n thisside of the oo1in) )ass.>#nte, at *9. But this funda!enta0 fais to )rasp the point. The stand&aonephrase >"ear ar!s> !ost natura0 con3e0s a !iitar0 !eanin) unless the addition of a 5uaif0in) phrasesi)nas that a different !eanin) is intended. hen, as in this case, there is no such 5uaifier, the !ostnatura !eanin) is the !iitar0 one2 and, in the a"sence of an0 5uaifier, it is a the !ore appropriate tooo1 to the prea!"e to confir! the natura !eanin) of the te=t.**The Court7s o"6ection is particuar0pu44in) in i)ht of its o/n contention that the addition of the !odifier >a)ainst> chan)es the !eanin) of>"ear ar!s.> Co!pare ante, at *$ ;definin) >"ear ar!s> to !ean >carr0in) a /eapon for a particuarpurpose&&confrontation>


30/75

produced /hene3er caed for "0 his co!!andin) officer.> Act for Re)uatin) and Discipinin) the Miitia,*%+9 a. Acts ch. *, G:, p. ' ;e!phasis addedthe Miitia.> U. S. Const., Art. I, G+, cs. *'&*. The 8resident, at the sa!e ti!e, /as e!po/ered as the >Co!!ander in Chief of the Ar!0 and #a30 ofthe United States, and of the Miitia of the se3era States, /hen caed into the actua Ser3ice of the UnitedStates.> Art. II, G'. But, /ith respect to the !iitia, a si)nificant reser3ation /as !ade to the States

Athou)h Con)ress /oud ha3e the po/er to ca forth,*(or)ani4e, ar!, and discipine the !iitia, as /eas to )o3ern >such 8art of the! as !a0 "e e!po0ed in the Ser3ice of the United States,> the Statesrespecti3e0 /oud retain the ri)ht to appoint the officers and to train the !iitia in accordance /ith thediscipine prescri"ed "0 Con)ress. Art. I, G+, c. *.'$
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.12http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.13http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.14http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.15http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=496&invol=334&pageno=340http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=496&invol=334&pageno=340http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=496&invol=334&pageno=340http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.16http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.16http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=496&page=340http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=496&page=340http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.17http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.17http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.18http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.18http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.19http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.19http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.20http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.12http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.13http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.14http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.15http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=496&invol=334&pageno=340http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=496&invol=334&pageno=340http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.16http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=496&page=340http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.17http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.18http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.19http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290#FNdissent1.20


31/75

But the ori)ina Constitution7s retention of the !iitia and its creation of di3ided authorit0 o3er that "od0did not pro3e sufficient to aa0 fears a"out the dan)ers posed "0 a standin) ar!0. For it /as percei3ed "0so!e that Artice I contained a si)nificant )ap hie it e!po/ered Con)ress to or)ani4e, ar!, anddiscipine the !iitia, it did not pre3ent Con)ress fro! pro3idin) for the !iitia7s disar!a!ent. As ?eor)eMason ar)ued durin) the de"ates in ir)inia on the ratification of the ori)ina Constitution

>The !iitia !a0 "e here destro0ed "0 that !ethod /hich has "een practiced in other parts of the /ord

"efore2 that is, "0 renderin) the! useess&&"0 disar!in) the!. Under 3arious pretences, Con)ress !a0

ne)ect to pro3ide for ar!in) and discipinin) the !iitia2 and the state )o3ern!ents cannot do it, for

Con)ress has the e=cusi3e ri)ht to ar! the!.> Eiot :%(.

This senti!ent /as echoed at a nu!"er of state ratification con3entions2 indeed, it /as one of the pri!ar0o"6ections to the ori)ina Constitution 3oiced "0 its opponents. The Anti&Federaists /ere uti!ate0unsuccessfu in persuadin) state ratification con3entions to condition their appro3a of the Constitutionupon the e3entua incusion of an0 particuar a!end!ent. But a nu!"er of States did propose to the firstFedera Con)ress a!end!ents refectin) a desire to ensure that the institution of the !iitia /oudre!ain protected under the ne/ ?o3ern!ent. The proposed a!end!ents sent "0 the States of ir)inia,

#orth Caroina, and #e/ or1 focused on the i!portance of preser3in) the state !iitias and reiteratedthe dan)ers posed "0 standin) ar!ies. #e/ Ha!pshire sent a proposa that differed si)nificant0 fro! theothers2 /hie aso in3o1in) the dan)ers of a standin) ar!0, it su))ested that the Constitution shoud !ore

"road0 protect the use and possession of /eapons, /ithout t0in) such a )uarantee e=press0 to the!aintenance of the !iitia. The States of Mar0and, 8enns03ania, and Massachusetts sent no ree3antproposed a!end!ents to Con)ress, "ut in each of those States a !inorit0 of the dee)ates ad3ocatedreated a!end!ents. hie the Mar0and !inorit0 proposas /ere e=cusi3e0 concerned /ith standin)ar!ies and conscientious o"6ectors, the unsuccessfu proposas in "oth Massachusetts and 8enns03ania

/oud ha3e protected a !ore "road0 /orded ri)ht, ess cear0 tied to ser3ice in a state !iitia. Faced /itha of these options, it is tein) that -a!es Madison chose to craft the Second A!end!ent as he did.

The ree3ant proposas sent "0 the ir)inia Ratif0in) Con3ention read as foo/s

>*%th, That the peope ha3e a ri)ht to 1eep and "ear ar!s2 that a /e re)uated Miitia co!posed of the

"od0 of the peope trained to ar!s is the proper, natura and safe defence of a free State. That standin)

ar!ies are dan)erous to i"ert0, and therefore ou)ht to "e a3oided, as far as the circu!stances and

protection of the Co!!unit0 /i ad!it2 and that in a cases the !iitar0 shoud "e under strict

su"ordination to and "e )o3erned "0 the ci3i po/er.> Eiot 9(.

>*(th. That an0 person rei)ious0 scrupuous of "earin) ar!s ou)ht to "e e=e!pted, upon pa0!ent of an

e5ui3aent to e!po0 another to "ear ar!s in his stead.>Ibid.

#orth Caroina adopted ir)inia7s proposas and sent the! to Con)ress as its o/n, athou)h it did not

actua0 ratif0 the ori)ina Constitution unti Con)ress had sent the proposed Bi of Ri)hts to the Statesfor ratification. ' Sch/art4(:'&(::2 see The Co!pete Bi of Ri)hts *+'&*+: ;#. Co)an ed. *((% ' Sch/art4 (*'.

#ota"0, each of these proposas used the phrase >1eep and "ear ar!s,> /hich /as e3entua0 adopted "0

Madison. And each proposa e!"edded the phrase /ithina )roup of principes that are distinct0 !iitar0 in!eanin).'*

B0 contrast, #e/ Ha!pshire7s proposa, athou)h it foo/ed another proposed a!end!ent that echoedthe fa!iiar concern a"out standin) ar!ies,''descri"ed the protection in3o3ed in !ore cear0 personat

Documents

District of Columbia vs Heller