Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 154

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

41 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

plained,  this  is  an  approach  that  the  Court  has  taken  in
other  areas  of  constitutional  law.    See  supra,  at  10–11. 
Application of such an approach, of course, requires judg-
ment,  but  the  very  nature  of  the  approach—requiring
careful identification of the relevant interests and evaluat-
ing the law’s effect upon them—limits the judge’s choices; 
and  the  method’s  necessary  transparency  lays  bare  the 
judge’s reasoning for all to see and to criticize. 

The majority’s methodology is, in my view, substantially 
less  transparent  than  mine.    At  a  minimum,  I  find  it 
difficult to understand the reasoning that seems to under-
lie certain conclusions that it reaches. 

The  majority  spends  the  first  54  pages  of  its  opinion 
attempting  to  rebut  JUSTICE  STEVENS’  evidence  that  the 
Amendment  was  enacted  with  a  purely  militia-related 
purpose. 
In  the  majority’s  view,  the  Amendment  also 
protects  an  interest  in  armed  personal  self-defense,  at
least  to  some  degree.  But  the  majority  does  not  tell  us 
precisely what that interest is.  “Putting all of [the Second
Amendment’s]  textual  elements  together,”  the  majority 
says, “we find that they guarantee the individual right to
possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”  Ante, 
at 19.  Then, three pages later, it says that “we do not read
the  Second  Amendment  to  permit  citizens  to  carry  arms
for  any sort of confrontation.”  Ante, at 22.  Yet, with one 
critical exception, it does not explain which confrontations 
count.  It simply leaves that question unanswered.

The majority does, however, point to one type of confron-
tation  that  counts,  for  it  describes  the  Amendment  as 
“elevat[ing]  above  all  other  interests  the  right  of  law-
abiding,  responsible  citizens  to  use  arms  in  defense  of 
hearth  and  home.”  Ante,  at  63.      What  is  its  basis  for 
finding  that  to  be  the  core  of  the  Second  Amendment
right?  The only historical sources identified by the major-
ity  that  even  appear  to  touch  upon  that  specific  matter 
consist  of  an  1866  newspaper  editorial  discussing  the