Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 58

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

55 

Opinion of the Court 

arms.26 

We  also  recognize  another  important  limitation  on  the
right  to  keep  and  carry  arms.    Miller  said,  as  we  have 
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 
“in common use at the time.”  307 U. S., at 179.  We think 
that  limitation  is  fairly  supported  by  the  historical  tradi­
tion of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual 
weapons.”  See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson,
Works  of  the  Honourable  James  Wilson  79  (1804);  J.
Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A 
Compendium  of  the  Common  Law  in  Force  in  Kentucky
482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indict­
able Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary 
of  the  Criminal  Law  48  (1840);  E.  Lewis,  An  Abridgment
of  the  Criminal  Law  of  the  United  States  64  (1847);  F.
Wharton,  A  Treatise  on  the  Criminal  Law  of  the  United 
States  726  (1852).    See  also  State  v.  Langford,  10  N. C. 
381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); 
English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 
71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in  military  service—M-16  rifles  and  the  like—may  be 
banned,  then  the  Second  Amendment  right  is  completely 
detached from the prefatory clause.  But as we have said, 
the  conception  of  the  militia  at  the  time  of  the  Second 
Amendment’s  ratification  was  the  body  of  all  citizens 
capable  of  military  service,  who  would  bring  the  sorts  of 
lawful  weapons  that  they  possessed  at  home  to  militia 
duty.  It  may  well  be  true  today  that  a  militia,  to  be  as
effective  as  militias  in  the  18th  century,  would  require
sophisticated  arms  that  are  highly  unusual  in  society  at
large.  Indeed,  it  may  be  true  that  no  amount  of  small 
arms  could  be  useful  against  modern-day  bombers  and 

—————— 

26 We  identify  these  presumptively  lawful  regulatory  measures  only 

as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.