Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 156.0

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

43 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

bitions  on  carrying  concealed  weapons”;  (2)  “prohibitions 
on  the  possession  of  firearms  by  felons”;  (3)  “prohibitions 
on  the  possession  of  firearms  by  . . .  the  mentally  ill”;  (4) 
“laws  forbidding  the  carrying  of  firearms  in  sensitive 
places such as schools and government buildings”; and (5) 
government  “conditions  and  qualifications”  attached  “to
the commercial sale of arms.”  Ante, at 54.  Why these?  Is 
it  that  similar  restrictions  existed  in  the  late  18th  cen-
tury?  The  majority  fails  to  cite  any  colonial  analogues. 
And  even  were  it  possible  to  find  analogous  colonial  laws
in respect to all these restrictions, why should these colo-
nial  laws  count,  while  the  Boston  loaded-gun  restriction
(along  with  the  other  laws  I  have  identified)  apparently 
does not count?  See supra, at 5–6, 38–39.  

At the same time the majority ignores a more important
question:  Given  the  purposes  for  which  the  Framers  en-
acted the Second Amendment, how should it be applied to
modern-day  circumstances  that  they  could  not  have  an-
ticipated?  Assume, for argument’s sake, that the Framers 
did intend the Amendment to offer a degree of self-defense
protection.  Does  that  mean  that  the  Framers  also  in-
tended  to  guarantee  a  right  to  possess  a  loaded  gun  near 
swimming  pools,  parks,  and  playgrounds?    That  they
would  not  have  cared  about  the  children  who  might  pick 
up a loaded gun on their parents’ bedside table?  That they
(who  certainly  showed  concern  for  the  risk  of  fire,  see 
supra,  at  5–7)  would  have  lacked  concern  for  the  risk  of 
accidental deaths or suicides that readily accessible loaded 
handguns in urban areas might bring?  Unless we believe 
that  they  intended  future  generations  to  ignore  such
matters, answering questions such as the questions in this 
judgment  exercised 
case  requires 
within a framework for constitutional analysis that guides
that  judgment  and  which  makes  its  exercise  transparent. 
One  cannot  answer  those  questions  by  combining  incon-
clusive historical research with judicial ipse dixit. 

judgment—judicial