Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 69

2 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

threat  to  the  sovereignty  of  the  several  States.    Neither 
the  text  of  the  Amendment  nor  the  arguments  advanced
by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limit­
ing any legislature’s authority to  regulate private civilian 
uses  of  firearms.    Specifically,  there  is  no  indication  that 
the  Framers  of  the  Amendment  intended  to  enshrine  the 
common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution. 

In  1934,  Congress  enacted  the  National  Firearms  Act, 

the  first  major  federal  firearms  law.1  Sustaining  an  in­
dictment  under  the  Act,  this  Court  held  that,  “[i]n  the
absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or 
use  of  a  ‘shotgun  having  a  barrel  of  less  than  eighteen
inches  in  length’  at  this  time  has  some  reasonable  rela­
tionship  to  the  preservation  or  efficiency  of  a  well  regu­
lated  militia,  we  cannot  say  that  the  Second  Amendment 
guarantees  the  right  to  keep  and  bear  such  an  instru­
ment.”  Miller, 307 U. S., at 178.  The view of the Amend­
ment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep
and  bear  arms  for  certain  military  purposes,  but  that  it
does  not  curtail  the  Legislature’s  power  to  regulate  the
nonmilitary  use  and  ownership  of  weapons—is  both  the
most  natural  reading  of  the  Amendment’s  text  and  the 
interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.

Since  our  decision  in  Miller,  hundreds  of  judges  have
relied on the view of the Amendment we endorsed there;2 

—————— 

1 There was some limited congressional activity earlier: A 10% federal
excise tax on firearms was  passed as part  of the Revenue Act of 1918,
40  Stat.  1057,  and  in  1927  a  statute  was  enacted  prohibiting  the 
shipment  of  handguns,  revolvers,  and  other  concealable  weapons 
through the United States mails.  Ch. 75, 44 Stat. 1059–1060 (hereinaf­
ter 1927 Act). 

2 Until  the  Fifth  Circuit’s  decision  in  United  States  v.  Emerson,  270 
F. 3d  203  (2001),  every  Court  of  Appeals  to  consider  the  question  had 
understood Miller to hold that the Second Amendment does not protect 
the right to possess and use guns for purely private, civilian purposes.
See,  e.g.,  United  States  v.  Haney,  264  F. 3d  1161,  1164–1166  (CA10 
2001);  United  States  v.  Napier,  233  F. 3d  394,  402–404  (CA6  2000);