Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 87

20 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

But  the  original  Constitution’s  retention  of  the  militia
and its creation of divided authority over that body did not 
prove sufficient to allay fears about the dangers posed by a
standing army.  For it was perceived by some that Article
I  contained  a  significant  gap:  While  it  empowered  Con­
gress to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, it did not 
prevent  Congress  from  providing  for  the  militia’s  disar­
mament.  As George Mason argued during the debates in
Virginia on the ratification of the original Constitution: 

“The  militia  may  be  here  destroyed  by  that  method
which  has  been  practiced  in  other  parts  of  the  world 
before; that is, by rendering them useless—by disarm­
ing  them.    Under  various  pretences,  Congress  may 
neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the mi­
litia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Con­
gress has the exclusive right to arm them.”  Elliot 379. 

This sentiment was echoed at a number of state ratifica­
tion  conventions;  indeed,  it  was  one  of  the  primary  objec­
tions to the original Constitution voiced by its opponents. 
The  Anti-Federalists  were  ultimately  unsuccessful  in
persuading state ratification conventions to condition their
approval  of  the  Constitution  upon  the  eventual  inclusion
of any particular amendment.  But a number of States did 
propose to the first Federal Congress amendments reflect­
ing  a  desire  to  ensure  that  the  institution  of  the  militia
would remain protected under the new Government.  The 
proposed  amendments  sent  by  the  States  of  Virginia, 
North Carolina, and New York focused on the importance
of preserving the state militias and reiterated the dangers 
posed  by  standing  armies.    New  Hampshire  sent  a  pro­
posal that differed significantly from the others; while also 
—————— 

Court’s complaint that the right as I have described it is empty because
it  merely  guarantees  “citizens’  right  to  use  a  gun  in  an  organization 
from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them.”  Ante, at 
28.