Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 110.0

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

27 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

equally  searching  textual  and  historical  inquiry  and  con-
cluded, to the contrary, that the term “bear Arms” was an
idiom that protected only the right “to use and possess arms
in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia.”  Id., 
at 651.  I do not intend to relitigate Heller here.  I accept its
holding as a matter of stare decisis.  I refer to its historical 
analysis only to show the difficulties inherent in answering
historical questions and to suggest that judges do not have
the expertise needed to answer those questions accurately. 
For example, the Heller majority relied heavily on its in-
terpretation  of  the  English  Bill  of  Rights.  Citing  Black-
stone, the majority claimed that the English Bill of Rights
protected a “ ‘right of having and using arms for self-preser-
vation and defence.’ ”  Id., at 594 (quoting 1 Commentaries
on  the  Laws  of  England  140  (1765)).  The  majority  inter-
preted that language to mean a private right to bear arms
for self-defense, “having nothing whatever to do with ser-
vice in a militia.”  554 U. S., at 593.  Two years later, how-
ever, 21 English and early American historians (including 
experts at top universities) told us in McDonald v. Chicago, 
561 U. S. 742 (2010), that the Heller Court had gotten the 
history wrong: The English Bill of Rights “did not . . . pro-
tect an individual’s right to possess, own, or use arms for 
private  purposes  such  as  to  defend  a  home  against  bur-
glars.”  Brief  for  English/Early  American  Historians  as 
Amici Curiae in McDonald v. Chicago, O. T. 2009, No. 08– 
1521,  p.  2.    Rather,  these  amici  historians  explained,  the 
English right to “have arms” ensured that the Crown could
not  deny  Parliament  (which  represented  the  people)  the
power to arm the landed gentry and raise a militia—or the 
right of the people to possess arms to take part in that mi-
litia—“should  the  sovereign  usurp  the  laws,  liberties,  es-
tates,  and  Protestant  religion  of  the  nation.”  Id.,  at  2–3. 
Thus, the English right did protect a right of “self-preserva-
tion and defence,” as Blackstone said, but that right “was to