Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 68.0

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

1 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 07–290 
_________________ 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.
 
DICK ANTHONY HELLER 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
 
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
 

[June 26, 2008] 

JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE 

GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting. 

The  question  presented  by  this  case  is  not  whether  the
Second  Amendment  protects  a  “collective  right”  or  an
“individual  right.”  Surely  it  protects  a  right  that  can  be 
enforced by individuals.  But a conclusion that the Second 
Amendment  protects  an  individual  right  does  not  tell  us 
anything about the scope of that right. 

Guns  are  used  to  hunt,  for  self-defense,  to  commit 
crimes,  for  sporting  activities,  and  to  perform  military 
duties.  The  Second  Amendment  plainly  does  not  protect 
the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that 
it  does  encompass  the  right  to  use  weapons  for  certain
military  purposes.  Whether  it  also  protects  the  right  to
possess  and  use  guns  for  nonmilitary  purposes  like  hunt­
ing and personal self-defense is the question presented by 
this case.  The text of the Amendment, its history, and our 
decision  in  United  States  v.  Miller,  307  U. S.  174  (1939), 
provide a clear answer to that question.

The  Second  Amendment  was  adopted  to  protect  the
right  of  the  people  of  each  of  the  several  States  to  main­
tain  a  well-regulated  militia.    It  was  a  response  to  con­
cerns  raised  during  the  ratification  of  the  Constitution
that  the  power  of  Congress  to  disarm  the  state  militias 
and create a national standing army posed an intolerable