Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 122

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

39 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

of  them,”  or  to  persons  merely  wearing  “privy  Coats  of
Mail.”  Ibid.  It would make little sense if a narrow excep-
tion for nobility, see Oxford English Dictionary (3d ed., Dec. 
2012),  https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/155878  (defining
“quality,” A.I.5.a), and “privy coats of mail” were allowed to 
swallow the broad rule that Hawkins (and other commen-
tators of his time) described elsewhere.  That rule provided
that “there may be an Affray where there is no actual Vio-
lence;  as  where  a  Man  arms  himself  with  dangerous  and 
unusual Weapons, in such a Manner as will naturally cause
a  Terror  to  the  People,  which  is  . . .  strictly  prohibited  by 
[the Statute of Northampton].”  Hawkins 135.  And it pro-
vided no exception for those who attempted to “excuse the
wearing  such  Armour  in  Publick,  by  alleging  that  . . .  he 
wears it for the Safety of his Person from . . . Assault.”  Id., 
at 136.  In my view, that rule announces the better reading 
of the Statute of Northampton—as a broad prohibition on 
the public carriage of firearms and other weapons, without 
an  intent-to-terrify  requirement  or  exception  for  self-de-
fense. 

Although the Statute of Northampton is particularly sig-
nificant  because  of  its  breadth,  longevity,  and  impact  on
American law, it was far from the only English restriction
on firearms or their carriage.  See, e.g., 6 Hen. 8 c. 13, §1 
(1514) (restricting the use and ownership of handguns); 25
Hen. 8 c. 17, §1 (1533) (same); 33 Hen. 8 c. 6, §§1–2 (1541) 
(same); 25 Edw. 3, st. 5, c. 2 (1350) (making it a “Felony or 
Trespass”  to  “ride  armed  covertly  or  secretly  with  Men  of
Arms  against  any  other,  to  slay  him,  or  rob  him,  or  take 
him, or retain him till he hath made Fine or Ransom for to 
have  his  Deliverance”)  (brackets  and  footnote  omitted).
Whatever right to bear arms we inherited from our English
forebears,  it  was  qualified  by  a  robust  tradition  of  public 
carriage regulations. 

As  I  have  made  clear,  I  am  not  a  historian.  But  if  the 
foregoing  facts,  which  historians  and  other  scholars  have