Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 61.0

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

55 

Opinion of the Court 

disorderly person, vagrant, or disturber of the peace, shall
be  allowed  to  bear  arms.”  Cong.  Globe,  39th  Cong.,  1st 
Sess., at 908–909; see also McDonald, 561 U. S., at 847–848 
(opinion of THOMAS, J.).26  Around the same time, the edi-
tors of The Loyal Georgian, a prominent black-owned news-
paper, were asked by “A Colored Citizen” whether “colored
persons [have] a right to own and carry fire arms.”  The ed-
itors responded that blacks had “the same right to own and 
carry fire arms that other citizens have.”  The Loyal Geor-
gian,  Feb.  3,  1866,  p. 3,  col.  4.    And,  borrowing  language 
from a Freedmen’s Bureau circular, the editors maintained 
that “[a]ny person, white or black, may be disarmed if con-
victed of making an improper or dangerous use of weapons,” 
even though “no military or civil officer has the right or au-
thority to disarm any class of people, thereby placing them 
at  the  mercy  of  others.”  Ibid.  (quoting  Circular  No.  5,
Freedmen’s Bureau, Dec. 22, 1865); see also McDonald, 561 
U. S., at 848–849 (opinion of THOMAS, J.).27 
—————— 

26 Respondents invoke General Orders No. 10, which covered the Sec-
ond  Military  District  (North  and  South  Carolina),  and  provided  that 
“[t]he practice of carrying deadly weapons, except by officers and soldiers
in the military service of the United States, is prohibited.”  Headquarters
Second  Military  Dist.,  Gen.  Orders  No.  10  (Charleston,  S. C.,  Apr.  11,
1867), in S. Exec. Doc. No. 14, 40th Cong., 1st Sess., 64 (1867).  We put
little weight on this categorical restriction given that the order also spec-
ified that a violation of this prohibition would “render the offender ame-
nable to trial and punishment by military commission,” ibid., rather than 
a jury otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution.  There is thus little in-
dication that these military dictates were designed to align with the Con-
stitution’s usual application during times of peace.

27 That said, Southern prohibitions on concealed carry were not always
applied  equally,  even  when  under  federal  scrutiny.  One  lieutenant 
posted in Saint Augustine, Florida, remarked how local enforcement of 
concealed-carry laws discriminated against blacks: “To sentence a negro 
to several dollars’ fine for carrying a revolver concealed upon his person, 
is in accordance with an ordinance of the town; but still the question nat-
urally  arises  in  my  mind,  ‘Why  is  this  poor  fellow  fined  for  an  offence 
which  is  committed  hourly  by  every  other  white  man  I  meet  in  the 
streets?’ ”  H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 57, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., 83 (1867); see