Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 114.0

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

1 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 07–290 
_________________ 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.
 
DICK ANTHONY HELLER 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
 
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
 

[June 26, 2008] 

JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE 

SOUTER, and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting. 

We must decide whether a District of Columbia law that 
prohibits the possession of handguns in the home violates
the  Second  Amendment.    The  majority,  relying  upon  its 
view that the Second Amendment seeks to protect a right 
of  personal  self-defense,  holds  that  this  law  violates  that 
Amendment.  In my view, it does not. 

I 

The  majority’s  conclusion  is  wrong  for  two  independent 
reasons.  The  first  reason  is  that  set  forth  by  JUSTICE 
STEVENS—namely,  that  the  Second  Amendment  protects
militia-related,  not  self-defense-related,  interests.    These 
two interests are sometimes intertwined.  To assure 18th-
century  citizens  that  they  could  keep  arms  for  militia 
purposes  would  necessarily  have  allowed  them  to  keep
arms  that  they  could  have  used  for  self-defense  as  well.
But  self-defense  alone,  detached  from  any  militia-related 
objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.

The  second  independent  reason  is  that  the  protection 
the Amendment provides is not absolute.  The Amendment 
permits  government  to  regulate  the  interests  that  it 
serves.  Thus,  irrespective  of  what  those  interests  are—
whether they do or do not include an independent interest