Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 85.0

18 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

Two  themes  relevant  to  our  current  interpretive  task
ran through the debates on the original Constitution.  “On 
the one hand, there was a widespread fear that a national
standing  Army  posed  an  intolerable  threat  to  individual 
liberty  and  to  the  sovereignty  of  the  separate  States.” 
Perpich  v.  Department  of  Defense,  496  U. S.  334,  340 
(1990).16    Governor  Edmund  Randolph,  reporting  on  the 
Constitutional  Convention  to  the  Virginia  Ratification 
Convention, explained: “With respect to a standing army, I 
believe there was not a member in the federal Convention, 
who  did  not  feel  indignation  at  such  an  institution.”    3 J. 
Elliot,  Debates  in  the  Several  State  Conventions  on  the 
Adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution  401  (2d  ed.  1863)
(hereinafter  Elliot).  On  the  other  hand,  the  Framers 
recognized  the  dangers  inherent  in  relying  on  inade­
quately trained militia members “as the primary means of
providing  for  the  common  defense,”  Perpich,  496  U. S.,  at 
340;  during  the  Revolutionary  War,  “[t]his  force,  though 
armed,  was  largely  untrained,  and  its  deficiencies  were
the  subject  of  bitter  complaint.”    Wiener,  The  Militia 
Clause  of  the  Constitution,  54  Harv.  L. Rev.  181,  182 
(1940).17    In  order  to  respond  to  those  twin  concerns,  a 
—————— 

and are governed by it.’ ”  Saenz v. Roe, 526 U. S. 489, 504, n. 17 (1999) 
(quoting U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 838 (1995) 
(KENNEDY, J., concurring)). 

16 Indeed, this was one of the grievances voiced by the colonists: Para­
graph  13  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  charged  of  King  George, 
“He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the 
Consent of our legislatures.”

17 George  Washington,  writing  to  Congress  on  September  24,  1776,
warned  that  for  Congress  “[t]o  place  any  dependance  upon  Militia,  is, 
assuredly, resting upon a broken staff.”  6 Writings of George Washing­
ton 106, 110 (J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1932).  Several years later he reiterated
this view in another letter to Congress: “Regular Troops alone are equal
to the exigencies of modern war, as well for defence as offence . . . . No 
Militia  will  ever  acquire  the  habits  necessary  to  resist  a  regular 
force. . . . The firmness requisite for the real business of fighting is only
to be attained by a constant course of discipline and service.”  20 id., at