Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

20 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER 

Opinion of the Court 

would  never  be  disarmed:  “That  the  subjects  which  are
Protestants  may  have  arms  for  their  defense  suitable  to 
their conditions and as allowed by law.”  1 W. & M., c. 2, 
§7,  in  3  Eng.  Stat.  at  Large  441  (1689).    This  right  has
long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second
Amendment.  See  E.  Dumbauld,  The  Bill  of  Rights  and
What It Means Today 51 (1957); W. Rawle, A View of the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  of  America  122  (1825) 
(hereinafter  Rawle).  It  was  clearly  an  individual  right,
having  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  service  in  a  militia.
To be sure, it was an individual right not available to the 
whole  population,  given  that  it  was  restricted  to  Protes­
tants, and like all written English rights it was held only 
against  the  Crown,  not  Parliament.    See  Schwoerer,  To 
Hold  and  Bear  Arms:  The  English  Perspective,  in  Bogus
207, 218; but see 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Consti­
tution  of  the  United  States  §1858  (1833)  (hereinafter 
Story) (contending that the “right to bear arms” is a “limi­
tatio[n] upon the power of parliament” as well).  But it was 
secured  to  them  as  individuals,  according  to  “libertarian
political  principles,”  not  as  members  of  a  fighting  force.
Schwoerer,  Declaration  of  Rights,  at  283;  see  also  id.,  at 
78; G. Jellinek, The Declaration of the Rights of Man and 
of Citizens 49, and n. 7 (1901) (reprinted 1979). 

By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had
become  fundamental  for  English  subjects.    See  Malcolm 
122–134.  Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “consti­
tuted  the  preeminent  authority  on  English  law  for  the 
founding  generation,”  Alden  v.  Maine,  527  U.  S.  706,  715 
(1999), cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one 
of  the  fundamental  rights  of  Englishmen.    See  1  Black-
stone  136,  139–140  (1765).    His  description  of  it  cannot
possibly  be  thought  to  tie  it  to  militia  or  military  service. 
It  was,  he  said,  “the  natural  right  of  resistance  and  self-
preservation,”  id.,  at  139,  and  “the  right  of  having  and 
using arms for self-preservation and defence,”  id., at 140;