Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 72.0

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

5 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

course  of  bricks  on  the  secure  foundation  of  the  courses 
laid  by  others  who  had  gone  before  him.”  The  Nature  of 
the Judicial Process 149 (1921).

In  this  dissent  I  shall  first  explain  why  our  decision  in 
Miller  was  faithful  to  the  text  of  the  Second  Amendment 
and  the  purposes  revealed  in  its  drafting  history.    I  shall 
then  comment  on  the  postratification  history  of  the 
Amendment,  which  makes  abundantly  clear  that  the 
Amendment  should  not  be  interpreted  as  limiting  the
authority of Congress to regulate the use or possession of 
firearms for purely civilian purposes. 

I 
The text of the Second Amendment is brief.  It provides:
“A  well  regulated  Militia,  being  necessary  to  the  security
of  a  free  State,  the  right  of  the  people  to  keep  and  bear 
Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Three  portions  of  that  text  merit  special  focus:  the  in­
troductory  language  defining  the  Amendment’s  purpose, 
the class of persons encompassed within its reach, and the
unitary nature of the right that it protects. 

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of 
a free State” 
The  preamble  to  the  Second  Amendment  makes  three
It  identifies  the  preservation  of  the
important  points. 
militia  as  the  Amendment’s  purpose;  it  explains  that  the 
militia  is  necessary  to  the  security  of  a  free  State;  and  it 
recognizes that the militia must be “well regulated.”  In all 
three  respects  it  is  comparable  to  provisions  in  several 
State  Declarations  of  Rights  that  were  adopted  roughly
contemporaneously with the Declaration of Independence.5 

—————— 

5 The  Virginia  Declaration  of  Rights  ¶13  (1776),  provided:  “That  a
well-regulated  militia,  composed  of  the  body  of  the  people,  trained  to 
arms,  is  the  proper,  natural,  and  safe  defence  of  a  free  State;  that 
Standing Armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to