Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 116.0

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

3 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right  of  the  people  to  keep  and  bear  Arms,  shall  not  be 
infringed.”  In interpreting and applying this Amendment,
I  take  as  a  starting  point  the  following  four  propositions,
based  on  our  precedent  and  today’s  opinions,  to  which  I 
believe the entire Court subscribes: 

(1)  The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., 
one  that  is  separately  possessed,  and  may  be  separately 
enforced,  by  each  person  on  whom  it  is  conferred.  See, 
e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, 
J., dissenting).

(2)  As  evidenced  by  its  preamble,  the  Amendment  was 
adopted “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation 
and  render  possible  the  effectiveness  of  [militia]  forces.” 
United  States  v.  Miller,  307  U. S.  174,  178  (1939);  see 
ante, at 26 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., 
dissenting).

(3)  The  Amendment  “must  be  interpreted  and  applied

with that end in view.”  Miller, supra, at 178. 

(4)  The right protected by the Second Amendment is not 
absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation.
See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281–282 (1897); 
ante, at 22, 54 (opinion of the Court). 

My approach to this case, while involving the first three
points,  primarily  concerns  the  fourth.  I  shall,  as  I  said, 
assume  with  the  majority  that  the  Amendment,  in  addi-
tion  to  furthering  a  militia-related  purpose,  also  furthers
an interest in possessing guns for purposes of self-defense, 
at least to some degree.  And I shall then ask whether the 
Amendment  nevertheless  permits  the  District  handgun 
restriction at issue here. 

Although  I  adopt  for  present  purposes  the  majority’s
position  that  the  Second  Amendment  embodies  a  general 
concern  about  self-defense,  I  shall  not  assume  that  the 
Amendment contains  a specific untouchable right  to  keep 
guns in the house to shoot burglars.  The majority, which