Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 34.0

Cite as:  554 U. S. ____ (2008) 

31 

Opinion of the Court 

See Veit 17, 20 (Virginia proposal); 4 J. Eliot, The Debates
in  the  Several  State  Conventions  on  the  Adoption  of  the
Federal  Constitution  244,  245  (2d  ed.  1836)  (reprinted 
1941)  (North  Carolina  proposal);  see  also  2  Documentary
Hist. 624 (Pennsylvania minority’s proposal).  The Second 
Amendment  precursors,  by  contrast,  referred  to  the  indi­
vidual English right already codified in two (and probably 
four)  State  constitutions.  The  Federalist-dominated  first 
Congress  chose  to  reject  virtually  all  major  structural 
revisions  favored  by  the  Antifederalists,  including  the 
proposed militia amendments.  Rather, it adopted primar­
ily the popular and uncontroversial (though, in the Feder­
alists’  view,  unnecessary)  individual-rights  amendments. 
The Second Amendment right, protecting only individuals’ 
liberty  to  keep  and  carry  arms,  did  nothing  to  assuage 
Antifederalists’ concerns about federal control of the mili­
tia.  See,  e.g.,  Centinel,  Revived,  No.  XXIX,  Philadelphia 
Independent Gazetteer, Sept. 9, 1789, in Young 711, 712. 

JUSTICE STEVENS thinks it significant that the Virginia,
New  York,  and  North  Carolina  Second  Amendment  pro­
posals  were  “embedded  . . .  within  a  group  of  principles 
that  are  distinctly  military  in  meaning,”  such  as  state­
ments  about  the  danger  of  standing  armies.  Post,  at  22. 
But  so  was  the  highly  influential  minority  proposal  in
Pennsylvania,  yet  that  proposal,  with  its  reference  to
hunting,  plainly  referred  to  an  individual  right.  See  2 
Documentary Hist. 624.  Other than that erroneous point, 
JUSTICE  STEVENS  has  brought  forward  absolutely  no 
evidence  that  those  proposals  conferred  only  a  right  to
carry  arms  in  a  militia.    By  contrast,  New  Hampshire’s 
proposal, the Pennsylvania minority’s proposal, and Sam­
uel  Adams’  proposal  in  Massachusetts  unequivocally 
referred  to  individual  rights,  as  did  two  state  constitu­
tional provisions at the time.  See Veit 16, 17 (New Hamp­
shire  proposal);  6  Documentary  Hist.  1452,  1453  (J. 
Kaminski  &  G.  Saladino  eds.  2000)  (Samuel  Adams’  pro­