Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 92

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

25 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

With all of these sources upon which to draw, it is strik­
ingly  significant  that  Madison’s  first  draft  omitted  any
mention  of  nonmilitary  use  or  possession  of  weapons. 
Rather,  his  original  draft  repeated  the  essence  of  the  two
proposed  amendments  sent  by  Virginia,  combining  the 
substance of the two provisions succinctly into one, which 
read: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia
being  the  best  security  of  a  free  country;  but  no  person 
religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled 
to render military service in person.”  Cogan 169.

Madison’s decision to model the Second Amendment on 

the  distinctly  military  Virginia  proposal  is  therefore  re­
vealing,  since  it  is  clear  that  he  considered  and  rejected 
formulations  that  would  have  unambiguously  protected
civilian uses of firearms.  When Madison prepared his first 
draft, and when that draft was debated and modified, it is 
reasonable to assume that all participants in the drafting
process  were  fully  aware  of  the  other  formulations  that 
would have protected civilian use and possession of weap­
ons and that their choice to craft the Amendment as they
did  represented  a  rejection  of  those  alternative  formula­
tions. 

Madison’s initial inclusion of an exemption for conscien­
tious objectors sheds revelatory light on the purpose of the 
Amendment.  It  confirms  an  intent  to  describe  a  duty  as
well as a right, and it unequivocally identifies the military 
character  of  both.    The  objections  voiced  to  the  conscien­
tious-objector  clause  only  confirm  the  central  meaning  of 
the  text.  Although  records  of  the  debate  in  the  Senate, 
which  is  where  the  conscientious-objector  clause  was 
—————— 

the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a 
free State; that Standing Armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as 
dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under 
strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”  1 Schwartz 
234.