Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

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

21 

Opinion of the Court 

see also 3 id., at 2–4 (1768).  Other contemporary authori­
ties  concurred.  See  G.  Sharp,  Tracts,  Concerning  the 
Ancient and Only True Legal Means of National Defence, 
by  a  Free  Militia  17–18,  27  (3d  ed.  1782);  2  J.  de  Lolme, 
The  Rise  and  Progress  of  the  English  Constitution  886–
887  (1784)  (A.  Stephens  ed.  1838);  W.  Blizard,  Desultory 
Reflections  on  Police  59–60  (1785).    Thus,  the  right  se­
cured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the 
time  of the founding  understood to be an individual right 
protecting against both public and private violence. 

And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their 

political  enemies,  George  III  had  tried  to  do  to  the  colo­
nists.  In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, 
the  Crown  began  to  disarm  the  inhabitants  of  the  most 
rebellious  areas.    That  provoked  polemical  reactions  by 
Americans  invoking  their  rights  as  Englishmen  to  keep 
arms.  A New York article of April 1769 said that “[i]t is a
natural  right  which  the  people  have  reserved  to  them­
selves,  confirmed  by  the  Bill  of  Rights,  to  keep  arms  for 
their own defence.”  A Journal of the Times: Mar. 17, New 
York  Journal,  Supp.  1,  Apr.  13,  1769,  in  Boston  Under 
Military  Rule  79  (O.  Dickerson  ed.  1936);  see  also,  e.g., 
Shippen, Boston Gazette, Jan. 30, 1769, in 1 The Writings
of Samuel Adams 299 (H. Cushing ed. 1968).  They under­
stood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves. 
As  the  most  important  early  American  edition  of  Black­
stone’s  Commentaries  (by  the  law  professor  and  former 
Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes
to the description of the arms right, Americans understood 
the  “right  of  self-preservation”  as  permitting  a  citizen  to
“repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in 
his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”  1 Black­
stone’s  Commentaries  145–146,  n.  42  (1803)  (hereinafter
Tucker’s  Blackstone).    See  also  W.  Duer,  Outlines  of  the 
Constitutional  Jurisprudence  of  the  United  States  31–32
(1833).