Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 126

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

13 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

F. 3d 370, 401 (2007) (case below); ante, at 57–58 (opinion
of  the  Court);  Brief  for  Respondent  52–54.    The  District 
concedes  that  such  an  exception  exists.  See  Brief  for 
Petitioners  56–57.  This  Court  has  final  authority  (albeit 
not often used) to definitively interpret District law, which
is,  after  all,  simply  a  species  of  federal  law.    See,  e.g., 
Whalen  v.  United  States,  445  U. S.  684,  687–688  (1980); 
see  also  Griffin  v.  United  States,  336  U. S.  704,  716–718 
(1949).  And because I see nothing in the District law that 
would preclude the existence of a background common-law 
self-defense  exception,  I  would  avoid  the  constitutional 
question  by  interpreting  the  statute  to  include  it.    See 
Ashwander  v.  TVA,  297  U. S.  288,  348  (1936)  (Brandeis, 
J., concurring). 

I am puzzled by the majority’s unwillingness to adopt a 
similar  approach.  It  readily  reads  unspoken  self-defense
exceptions into every colonial law, but it refuses to accept
the  District’s  concession  that  this  law  has  one.    Compare 
ante, at 59–61, with ante, at 57–58.  The one District case 
it  cites  to  support  that  refusal,  McIntosh  v.  Washington, 
395  A. 2d  744,  755–756  (1978),  merely  concludes  that  the 
District  Legislature  had  a  rational  basis  for  applying  the 
trigger-lock  law  in  homes  but  not  in  places  of  business. 
Nowhere  does  that  case  say  that  the  statute  precludes  a
self-defense  exception  of  the  sort  that  I  have  just  de-
scribed.  And  even  if  it  did,  we  are  not  bound  by  a  lower 
court’s interpretation of federal law. 

The  third  District  restriction  prohibits  (in  most  cases)
the registration of a handgun within the District.  See §7–
2502.02(a)(4).  Because  registration  is  a  prerequisite  to 
firearm  possession,  see  §7–2502.01(a),  the  effect  of  this 
provision  is  generally  to  prevent  people  in  the  District
from  possessing  handguns.    In  determining  whether  this
regulation  violates  the  Second  Amendment,  I  shall  ask 
how  the  statute  seeks  to  further  the  governmental  inter-
ests  that  it  serves,  how  the  statute  burdens  the  interests