Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 110

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

43 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

muskets and sawed-off shotguns; it turned, rather, on the 
basic difference between the military and nonmilitary use
and possession of guns.  Indeed, if the Second Amendment 
were  not  limited  in  its  coverage  to  military  uses  of  weap­
ons,  why  should  the  Court  in  Miller  have  suggested  that 
some  weapons  but  not  others  were  eligible  for  Second
Amendment  protection?  If  use  for  self-defense  were  the 
relevant  standard,  why  did  the  Court  not  inquire  into
the  suitability  of  a  particular  weapon  for  self-defense 
purposes?

Perhaps in recognition of the weakness of its attempt to
distinguish  Miller,  the  Court  argues  in  the  alternative 
that  Miller  should  be  discounted  because  of  its  decisional 
history.  It is true that the appellees in Miller did not file a 
brief  or  make  an  appearance,  although  the  court  below 
had held that the relevant provision of the National Fire­
arms Act  violated the Second Amendment (albeit without 
any reasoned opinion).  But, as our decision in Marbury v. 
Madison,  1  Cranch  137,  in  which  only  one  side  appeared
and  presented  arguments,  demonstrates,  the  absence  of
adversarial  presentation  alone  is  not  a  basis  for  refusing
to  accord  stare  decisis  effect  to  a  decision  of  this  Court. 
See  Bloch,  Marbury  Redux,  in  Arguing  Marbury  v.  Madi-
son  59,  63  (M.  Tushnet  ed.  2005).    Of  course,  if  it  can  be 
demonstrated that new evidence or arguments were genu­
inely not available to an earlier Court, that fact should be 
given special weight as we consider whether to overrule a 
prior  case.  But  the  Court  does  not  make  that  claim,  be­
cause  it  cannot.    Although  it  is  true  that  the  drafting
history  of  the  Amendment  was  not  discussed  in  the  Gov­
ernment’s  brief,  see  ante,  at  51,  it  is  certainly  not  the
drafting  history  that  the  Court’s  decision  today  turns  on. 
And those sources upon which the Court today relies most 
heavily  were  available  to  the  Miller  Court.    The  Govern­
ment cited the English Bill of Rights and quoted a lengthy 
passage  from  Aymette  detailing  the  history  leading  to  the