Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

12 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER 

Opinion of the Court 

ing a weapon in an organized military unit.  Justice James 
Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-
bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural
right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called
the law of “self preservation.”  2 Collected Works of James 
Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing 
Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Intro­
duction  to  American  Law  198  (1837)  (“Thus  the  right  of 
self-defence  [is]  guaranteed  by  the  [Ohio]  constitution”);
see  also  id.,  at  157  (equating  Second  Amendment  with 
that  provision  of  the  Ohio  Constitution).    That  was  also 
the  interpretation  of  those  state  constitutional  provisions 
adopted  by  pre-Civil  War  state  courts.9    These  provisions
demonstrate—again,  in  the  most  analogous  linguistic
context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying
of arms in a militia. 

The  phrase  “bear  Arms”  also  had  at  the  time  of  the 
founding  an  idiomatic  meaning  that  was  significantly
different  from  its  natural  meaning:  “to  serve  as  a  soldier,
do military service, fight” or “to wage war.”  See Linguists’
Brief  18;  post,  at  11  (STEVENS, J.,  dissenting).    But  it 
unequivocally  bore  that  idiomatic  meaning  only  when
followed  by  the  preposition  “against,”  which  was  in  turn
followed by the target of the hostilities.  See 2 Oxford 21. 
(That  is  how,  for  example,  our  Declaration  of  Independ­
ence ¶28, used the phrase:  “He has constrained our fellow 
Citizens  taken  Captive  on  the  high  Seas  to  bear  Arms 
against  their  Country . . . .”)    Every  example  given  by
petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” 

—————— 

9 See  Bliss  v.  Commonwealth,  2  Litt.  90,  91–92  (Ky.  1822);  State  v. 
Reid,  1  Ala.  612,  616–617  (1840);  State  v.  Schoultz,  25  Mo.  128,  155 
(1857);  see  also  Simpson  v.  State,  5  Yer.  356,  360  (Tenn.  1833)  (inter­
preting  similar  provision  with  “common  defence”  purpose);  State  v. 
Huntly,  25  N. C.  418,  422–423  (1843)  (same);  cf.  Nunn  v.  State,  1  Ga. 
243,  250–251  (1846)  (construing  Second  Amendment);  State  v.  Chan-
dler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 489–490 (1850) (same).