Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 118

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

5 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

houses) for the three days surrounding New Year’s Day.  5 
Colonial Laws of New York, ch. 1501, pp. 244–246 (1894); 
see  also  An  Act  to  Suppress  the  Disorderly  Practice  of 
Firing  Guns,  &  c.,  on  the  Times  Therein  Mentioned,  8 
Statutes  at  Large  of  Pennsylvania  1770–1776,  pp.  410–
412  (1902)  (similar  law  for  all  “inhabited  parts”  of  Penn-
sylvania).  See  also  An  Act  for  preventing  Mischief  being 
done in the Town of Newport, or in any other Town in this
Government,  1731,  Rhode  Island  Session  Laws  (prohibit-
ing,  on  penalty  of  5  shillings  for  a  first  offense  and  more
for  subsequent  offenses,  the  firing  of  “any  Gun  or  Pistol 
. . . in the Streets of any of the Towns of this Government, 
or  in  any  Tavern  of  the  same,  after  dark,  on  any  Night 
whatsoever”).

Furthermore, several towns and cities (including Phila-
delphia,  New  York,  and  Boston)  regulated,  for  fire-safety 
reasons, the storage of gunpowder, a necessary component
of an operational firearm.  See Cornell & DeDino, A Well 
Regulated Right, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 487, 510–512 (2004).
Boston’s law in particular impacted the use of firearms in 
the  home  very  much  as  the  District’s  law  does  today. 
Boston’s  gunpowder  law  imposed  a  £10  fine  upon  “any 
Person”  who  “shall  take  into  any Dwelling-House,  Stable, 
Barn, Out-house, Ware-house, Store, Shop, or other Build-
ing,  within  the  Town  of Boston, any . . . Fire-Arm, loaded 
with,  or  having  Gun-Powder.”    An  Act  in  Addition  to  the 
several Acts already made for the prudent Storage of Gun-
Powder  within  the  Town  of  Boston,  ch.  XIII,  1783  Mass. 
Acts  218–219;  see  also  1  S.  Johnson,  A  Dictionary  of  the 
English  Language  751  (4th  ed.  1773)  (defining  “firearms”
as  “[a]rms  which  owe  their  efficacy  to  fire;  guns”).    Even 
assuming,  as  the  majority  does,  see  ante,  at  59–60,  that 
this  law  included  an  implicit  self-defense  exception,  it
would  nevertheless  have  prevented  a  homeowner  from
keeping in his home a gun that he could immediately pick 
up  and  use  against  an  intruder.  Rather,  the  homeowner