Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 90

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

23 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

proposal read: 

“Twelfth,  Congress  shall  never  disarm  any  Citizen 
unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.” 
Id., at 758, 761. 

The  proposals  considered  in  the  other  three  States, 

although  ultimately  rejected  by  their  respective  ratifica­
tion  conventions,  are  also  relevant  to  our  historical  in­
quiry.  First, the Maryland proposal, endorsed by a minor­
ity of the delegates and later circulated in pamphlet form,
read: 

“4. That no standing army shall be kept up in time 
of  peace,  unless  with  the  consent  of  two  thirds  of  the
members present of each branch of Congress. 

.

 .

 .

 .

 . 

“10. That  no  person  conscientiously  scrupulous  of 

bearing  arms  in  any  case,  shall  be  compelled  person­
ally to serve as a soldier.”  Id., at 729, 735. 

The  rejected  Pennsylvania  proposal,  which  was  later
incorporated into a critique of the Constitution titled “The
Address  and  Reasons  of  Dissent  of  the  Pennsylvania  Mi­
nority  of  the  Convention  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  to 
Their  Constituents  (1787),”  signed  by  a  minority  of  the
State’s delegates (those who had voted against ratification 
of the Constitution), id., at 628, 662, read: 

7. “That the people have a right to bear arms for the
defense  of  themselves  and  their  own  State,  or  the 
United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and
no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any
of them unless for crimes committed, or real danger of
public injury from individuals; and as standing armies
in  the  time  of  peace  are  dangerous  to  liberty,  they 
ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be
kept under strict subordination to, and be governed by 
the civil powers.”  Id., at 665.