Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 102

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

35 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

contrary,  Story’s  exclusive  focus  on  the  militia  in  his  dis­
cussion  of  the  Second  Amendment  confirms  his  under­
standing of the right protected by the Second Amendment
as limited to military uses of arms.

Story’s writings as a Justice of this Court, to the extent
that  they  shed  light  on  this  question,  only  confirm  that 
Justice  Story  did  not  view  the  Amendment  as  conferring
upon  individuals  any  “self-defense”  right  disconnected 
from  service  in  a  state  militia.  Justice  Story  dissented 
from the Court’s decision in Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1, 
24 (1820), which held that a state court “had a concurrent
jurisdiction”  with  the  federal  courts  “to  try  a  militia  man 
who had disobeyed the call of the President, and to enforce
the laws of Congress against such delinquent.”  Id., at 31– 
32.  Justice Story believed that Congress’ power to provide
for  the  organizing,  arming,  and  disciplining  of  the  militia 
was, when Congress acted, plenary; but he explained that 
in the absence of congressional action, “I am certainly not
prepared  to  deny  the  legitimacy  of  such  an  exercise  of 
[state]  authority.”    Id.,  at  52.  As  to  the  Second  Amend­
ment,  he  wrote  that  it  “may  not,  perhaps,  be  thought  to
have  any  important  bearing  on  this  point.    If  it  have,  it 
confirms and illustrates, rather than impugns the reason­
ing already suggested.”  Id., at 52–53.  The Court contends 
that had Justice Story understood the Amendment to have 
a militia purpose, the Amendment would have had “enor­
mous and obvious bearing on the point.”  Ante, at 38.  But 
the  Court  has  it  quite  backwards:  If  Story  had  believed 
that  the  purpose  of  the  Amendment  was  to  permit  civil­
ians  to  keep  firearms  for  activities  like  personal  self-
defense, what “confirm[ation] and illustrat[ion],” Houston, 
5  Wheat.,  at  53,  could  the  Amendment  possibly  have 
provided  for  the  point  that  States  retained  the  power  to
organize, arm, and discipline their own militias?