Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

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

19 

Opinion of the Court 

c. Meaning  of  the  Operative  Clause.  Putting  all  of
these textual elements together, we find that they guaran­
tee  the  individual  right  to  possess  and  carry  weapons  in 
case of confrontation.  This meaning is strongly confirmed 
by  the  historical  background  of  the  Second  Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely under­
stood  that  the  Second  Amendment,  like  the  First  and 
Fourth  Amendments,  codified  a  pre-existing  right.  The 
very  text  of  the  Second  Amendment  implicitly  recognizes 
the  pre-existence  of  the  right  and  declares  only  that  it 
“shall  not  be  infringed.”  As  we  said  in  United  States  v. 
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right 
granted by the Constitution.  Neither is it in any manner 
dependent  upon  that  instrument  for  its  existence.  The 
Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed 
. . . .”16 

Between  the  Restoration  and  the  Glorious  Revolution, 
the  Stuart  Kings  Charles  II  and  James  II  succeeded  in
using  select  militias  loyal  to  them  to  suppress  political
dissidents,  in  part  by  disarming  their  opponents.    See  J. 
Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31–53 (1994) (hereinaf­
ter  Malcolm);  L.  Schwoerer,  The  Declaration  of  Rights, 
1689, p. 76 (1981).  Under the auspices of the 1671 Game 
Act,  for  example,  the  Catholic  James  II  had  ordered  gen­
eral  disarmaments  of  regions  home  to  his  Protestant 
enemies.  See  Malcolm  103–106.  These  experiences
caused  Englishmen  to  be  extremely  wary  of  concentrated
military  forces  run  by  the  state  and  to  be  jealous  of  their 
arms.  They  accordingly  obtained  an  assurance  from  Wil­
liam  and  Mary,  in  the  Declaration  of  Right  (which  was
codified  as  the  English  Bill  of  Rights),  that  Protestants 

—————— 

Officers or their Assistants, employed in the Execution of Justice . . .”). 

16 Contrary  to  JUSTICE  STEVENS’  wholly  unsupported  assertion,  post, 
at 1, 17, there was no pre-existing right in English law “to use weapons
for certain military purposes” or to use arms in an organized militia.