Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 83.0

16 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

“[K]eep  and  bear  arms”  thus  perfectly  describes  the  re­
sponsibilities of a framing-era militia member. 

This  reading  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the  clause
protects  only  one  right,  rather  than  two.    It  does  not  de­
scribe a right “to keep arms” and a separate right “to bear
arms.”  Rather,  the  single  right  that  it  does  describe  is 
both a duty and a right to have arms available and ready
for military service, and to use them for military purposes
when  necessary.13    Different  language  surely  would  have 
been  used  to  protect  nonmilitary  use  and  possession  of 
weapons from regulation if such an intent had played any 
role in the drafting of the Amendment. 

* 

* 

* 
When  each  word  in  the  text  is  given  full  effect,  the
Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people 
a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service 
in  a  well-regulated  militia.    So  far  as  appears,  no  more 
than  that  was  contemplated  by  its  drafters  or  is  encom­
passed  within  its  terms.    Even  if  the  meaning  of  the  text
were  genuinely  susceptible  to  more  than  one  interpreta­
tion,  the  burden  would  remain  on  those  advocating  a 
departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and 

—————— 

same by him at all times, ready and fit for service, under the penalty of
two shillings and six pence for each neglect or default thereof on every 
muster  day”  (second  emphasis  added));  1782  Conn.  Acts  590  (“And  it
shall be the duty of the Regional Quarter-Master to provide and keep a 
sufficient  quantity  of  Ammunition  and  warlike  stores  for  the  use  of
their respective regiments, to be kept in such place or places as shall be
ordered by the Field Officers” (emphasis added)). 

13 The  Court  notes  that  the  First  Amendment  protects  two  separate 
rights  with  the  phrase  “the ‘right [singular]  of  the  people  peaceably  to 
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’ ”  
Ante, at 18.  But this only proves the point: In contrast to the language 
quoted  by  the  Court,  the  Second  Amendment  does  not  protect  a  “right
to keep and to bear arms,” but rather a “right to keep and bear arms.”
The  state  constitutions  cited  by  the  Court  are  distinguishable  on  the 
same ground.