Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 108.0

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

41 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

In 1901 the President revitalized the militia by creating 
“ ‘the National Guard of the several States,’ ” Perpich, 496 
U. S.,  at  341,  and  nn.  9–10;  meanwhile,  the  dominant 
understanding of the Second Amendment’s inapplicability
to  private  gun  ownership  continued  well  into  the  20th 
century.  The  first  two  federal  laws  directly  restricting
civilian  use  and  possession  of  firearms—the  1927  Act 
prohibiting  mail  delivery  of  “pistols,  revolvers,  and  other
firearms capable of being concealed on the person,” Ch. 75, 
44 Stat. 1059, and the 1934 Act prohibiting the possession 
of  sawed-off  shotguns  and  machine  guns—were  enacted 
over  minor  Second  Amendment  objections  dismissed  by 
the vast majority of the legislators who participated in the 
debates.37  Members of Congress clashed over the wisdom 
and efficacy of such laws as crime-control measures.  But 
since the statutes did not infringe upon the military use or 
possession  of  weapons,  for  most  legislators  they  did  not 
even raise the specter of possible conflict with the Second
Amendment. 

Thus,  for  most  of  our  history,  the  invalidity  of  Second­
Amendment-based  objections  to  firearms  regulations  has  

—————— 

Supreme  Court  upholding,  against  a  Second  Amendment  challenge,  

New  Jersey’s  gun  control  law.    Although  much  of  the  analysis  in  the
New Jersey court’s opinion turned on the inapplicability of the Second
Amendment as a constraint on the States, the court also quite correctly 
read Miller to hold that “Congress, though admittedly governed by the
second  amendment,  may  regulate  interstate  firearms  so  long  as  the 
regulation  does  not  impair  the  maintenance  of  the  active,  organized
militia of the states.”  Burton v. Sills, 53 N. J. 86, 98, 248 A. 2d 521, 527 
(1968). 

37 The  1927  statute  was  enacted  with  no  mention  of  the  Second 
Amendment  as  a  potential  obstacle,  although  an  earlier  version  of  the 
bill  had  generated  some  limited  objections  on  Second  Amendment 
grounds; see 66 Cong. Rec. 725–735 (1924).  And the 1934 Act featured 
just  one  colloquy,  during  the  course  of  lengthy  Committee  debates,  on
whether  the  Second  Amendment  constrained  Congress’  ability  to 
legislate in this sphere; see Hearings on House Committee on Ways and 
Means H. R. 9006, before the 73d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 19 (1934).