Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

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

29 

Opinion of the Court 

“The  liberty  of  the  press  was  to  be  unrestrained,  but  he 
who used it was to be responsible in cases of its abuse; like
the  right  to  keep  fire  arms,  which  does  not  protect  him 
who  uses  them  for  annoyance  or  destruction.”  Common-
wealth v.  Blanding, 20 Mass. 304, 313–314.  The analogy
makes no sense if firearms could not be used for any indi­
vidual  purpose  at  all.  See  also  Kates,  Handgun  Prohibi­
tion and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment, 
82  Mich.  L. Rev.  204,  244  (1983)  (19th-century  courts
never  read  “common  defence”  to  limit  the  use  of  weapons
to militia service).

We  therefore  believe  that  the  most  likely  reading  of  all 
four  of  these  pre-Second  Amendment  state  constitutional 
provisions is that they secured an individual right to bear 
arms for defensive purposes.  Other States did not include 
rights  to  bear  arms  in  their  pre-1789  constitutions—
although  in  Virginia  a  Second  Amendment  analogue  was
proposed  (unsuccessfully)  by  Thomas  Jefferson.    (It  read:
“No  freeman  shall  ever  be  debarred  the  use  of  arms 
[within  his  own  lands  or  tenements].”18   1  The  Papers  of
Thomas Jefferson 344 (J. Boyd ed. 1950)). 

Between  1789  and  1820,  nine  States  adopted  Second
Amendment  analogues.  Four  of  them—Kentucky,  Ohio, 
Indiana, and Missouri—referred to the right of the people 
to “bear arms in defence of themselves and the State.”  See 
n. 8,  supra.  Another three States—Mississippi, Connecti­
cut,  and  Alabama—used  the  even  more  individualistic 
phrasing  that  each  citizen  has  the  “right  to  bear  arms  in 
defence of himself and the State.”  See ibid.  Finally, two
States—Tennessee  and  Maine—used  the  “common  de­
fence” language of Massachusetts.  See Tenn. Const., Art. 
—————— 

18 JUSTICE STEVENS says that the drafters of the Virginia Declaration 
of  Rights  rejected  this  proposal  and  adopted  “instead”  a  provision 
written  by  George  Mason  stressing  the  importance  of  the  militia.    See 
post, at 24, and n. 24.  There is no evidence that the drafters regarded
the Mason proposal as a substitute for the Jefferson proposal.