Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 143

30 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

of  only  61.4  square  miles  of  urban  area.    See  Dept.  of 
Commerce, Bureau of Census, United States: 2000 (pt. 1),
p. 11 (2002) (Table 8).  The adjacent States do permit the
use  of  handguns  for  target  practice,  and  those  States  are
only a brief subway  ride away.   See Md. Crim. Law Code 
Ann.  §4–203(b)(4)  (Lexis  Supp.  2007)  (general  handgun 
restriction  does  not  apply  to  “the  wearing,  carrying,  or
transporting by a person of a handgun used in connection 
with,” inter alia, “a target shoot, formal or informal target
practice, sport shooting event, hunting, [or] a Department
of  Natural  Resources-sponsored  firearms  and  hunter
safety  class”);  Va.  Code  Ann.  §18.2–287.4  (Lexis  Supp. 
2007)  (general  restriction  on  carrying  certain  loaded  pis-
tols  in  certain  public  areas  does  not  apply  “to  any  person 
actually  engaged  in  lawful  hunting  or  lawful  recreational
shooting  activities  at  an  established  shooting  range  or
shooting contest”); Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
Authority, Metrorail System Map, http://www.wmata.com/
metrorail/systemmmap.cfm.

Of  course,  a  subway  rider  must  buy  a  ticket,  and  the
ride takes time.  It also costs money to store a pistol, say, 
at a target range, outside the District.  But given the costs 
already  associated  with  gun  ownership  and  firearms 
training,  I  cannot  say  that  a  subway  ticket  and  a  short 
subway  ride  (and  storage  costs)  create  more  than  a  mini-
mal  burden.  Compare  Crawford  v.  Marion  County  Elec-
tion Bd., 553 U. S. ___, ___ (2008) (slip op., at 3) (BREYER, 
J.,  dissenting)  (acknowledging  travel  burdens  on  indigent
persons  in  the  context  of  voting  where  public  transporta-
tion options were limited).  Indeed, respondent and two of 
his  coplaintiffs  below  may  well  use  handguns  outside  the 
District  on  a  regular  basis,  as  their  declarations  indicate
that  they  keep  such  weapons  stored  there.    See  App.  to 
Pet.  for  Cert.  77a  (respondent);  see  also  id.,  at  78a,  84a 
(coplaintiffs).  I  conclude  that  the  District’s  law  burdens 
the Second Amendment’s primary objective little, or not at