Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 73

6 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

Those state provisions highlight the importance members
of the founding generation attached to the maintenance of
state  militias;  they  also  underscore  the  profound  fear
shared by many in that era of the dangers posed by stand­
ing armies.6  While the need for state militias has not been 

—————— 

liberty;  and  that,  in  all  cases,  the  military  should  be  under  strict 
subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”  1 B. Schwartz, The 
Bill of Rights 235 (1971) (hereinafter Schwartz). 

Maryland’s Declaration of Rights, Arts. XXV–XXVII (1776), provided: 
“That  a  well-regulated  militia  is  the  proper  and  natural  defence  of  a
free government”; “That standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and
ought not to be raised or kept up, without consent of the Legislature”; 
“That in all cases, and at all times, the military ought to be under strict
subordination to and control of the civil power.”  1 Schwartz 282. 

Delaware’s  Declaration  of  Rights,  §§18–20  (1776),  provided:  “That  a
well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free 
government”;  “That  standing  armies  are  dangerous  to  liberty,  and
ought  not  to  be  raised  or  kept  up  without  the  consent  of  the  Legisla­
ture”; “That in all cases and at all times the military ought to be under 
strict  subordination  to  and  governed  by  the  civil  power.”    1  Schwartz 
278. 

Finally,  New  Hampshire’s  Bill  of  Rights,  Arts.  XXIV–XXVI  (1783), 
read: “A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and sure defence
of a state”; “Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to 
be  raised  or  kept  up  without  consent  of  the  legislature”;  “In  all  cases, 
and at all times, the military ought to be under strict subordination to, 
and  governed  by  the  civil  power.”    1  Schwartz  378.    It  elsewhere  pro­
vided:  “No  person  who  is  conscientiously  scrupulous  about  the  lawful­
ness  of  bearing  arms,  shall  be  compelled  thereto,  provided  he  will  pay
an equivalent.”  Id., at 377 (Art. XIII). 

6 The  language  of  the  Amendment’s  preamble  also  closely  tracks  the
language of a number of contemporaneous state militia statutes, many
of which began with nearly identical statements.  Georgia’s 1778 militia
statute,  for  example,  began,  “[w]hereas  a  well  ordered  and  disciplined
Militia, is essentially necessary, to the Safety, peace and prosperity, of 
this  State.”  Act  of  Nov.  15,  1778,  19  Colonial  Records  of  the  State  of 
Georgia  103  (Candler  ed.  1911  (pt.  2)).    North  Carolina’s  1777  militia 
statute started with this language: “Whereas a well regulated Militia is
absolutely  necessary  for  the  defending  and  securing  the  Liberties  of  a
free  State.”  N. C.  Sess.  Laws  ch.  1,  §I,  p. 1.    And  Connecticut’s  1782 
“Acts  and  Laws  Regulating  the  Militia”  began,  “Whereas  the  Defence