Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 76

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

9 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

text  that  even  mentions  civilian  uses  of  firearms,  the 
Court proceeds to “find” its preferred reading in what is at
best an ambiguous text, and then concludes that its read­
ing is not foreclosed by the preamble.  Perhaps the Court’s
approach to the text is acceptable advocacy, but it is surely
an unusual approach for judges to follow. 

 “The right of the people” 

The  centerpiece  of  the  Court’s  textual  argument  is  its 

insistence that the words “the people” as used in the Sec­
ond  Amendment  must  have  the  same  meaning,  and  pro­
tect  the  same  class  of  individuals,  as  when  they  are  used
in  the  First  and  Fourth  Amendments.  According  to  the
Court,  in  all  three  provisions—as  well  as  the  Constitu­
tion’s  preamble,  section  2  of  Article  I,  and  the  Tenth
Amendment—“the term unambiguously refers to all mem­
bers  of  the  political  community,  not  an  unspecified  sub­
set.”  Ante,  at  6.  But  the  Court  itself  reads  the  Second 
Amendment  to  protect  a  “subset”  significantly  narrower
than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth
Amendments;  when  it  finally  drills  down  on  the  substan­
tive  meaning  of  the  Second  Amendment,  the  Court  limits 
the  protected  class  to  “law-abiding,  responsible  citizens,” 
ante, at 63.  But the class of persons protected by the First
and Fourth Amendments is not so limited; for even felons 
(and  presumably  irresponsible  citizens  as  well)  may  in­
voke  the  protections  of  those  constitutional  provisions. 
The  Court  offers  no  way  to  harmonize  its  conflicting  pro­
nouncements. 

The Court also overlooks the significance of the way the 

—————— 

enacting part is expressed in clear, unambiguous terms.”  2A N. Singer,

Sutherland on Statutory Construction §47.04, p. 146 (rev. 5th ed. 1992)

(emphasis  added).    Surely  not  even  the  Court  believes  that  the

Amendment’s  operative  provision,  which,  though  only  14  words  in  

length, takes the Court the better part of 18 pages to parse, is perfectly 

“clear and unambiguous.”