Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 38.0

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

35 

Opinion of the Court 

at  least  in  part,  in  the  use  of  arms  for  the  purposes  of 
war.”  Id.,  at  140.  Rawle  further  said  that  the  Second 
Amendment right ought not “be abused to the disturbance
of  the  public  peace,”  such  as  by  assembling  with  other 
armed  individuals  “for  an  unlawful  purpose”—statements
that  make  no  sense  if  the  right  does  not  extend  to  any 
individual purpose. 

Joseph  Story  published  his  famous  Commentaries  on
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  in  1833.    JUSTICE 
STEVENS  suggests  that  “[t]here  is  not  so  much  as  a  whis­
per” in Story’s explanation of the Second Amendment that
favors  the  individual-rights  view.  Post,  at  34.    That  is 
wrong.  Story explained that the English Bill of Rights had 
also  included  a  “right  to  bear  arms,”  a  right  that,  as  we
have  discussed,  had  nothing  to  do  with  militia  service.  3 
Story §1858.  He then equated the English right with the
Second Amendment: 

“§1891.  A  similar  provision  [to  the  Second  Amend­
ment]  in  favour  of  protestants  (for  to  them  it  is  con­
fined) is to be found in the bill of rights of 1688, it be­
ing declared, ‘that the subjects, which are protestants, 
may have arms for their defence suitable to their con­
dition, and as allowed by law.’  But under various pre­
tences  the  effect  of  this  provision  has  been  greatly
narrowed; and it is at present in England more nomi­
nal  than  real,  as  a  defensive  privilege.” 
(Footnotes
omitted.) 

This  comparison  to  the  Declaration  of  Right  would  not
make sense if the Second Amendment right was the right
to use a gun in a militia, which was plainly not what the 
English right protected.  As the Tennessee Supreme Court 
recognized  38  years  after  Story  wrote  his  Commentaries, 
“[t]he  passage  from  Story,  shows  clearly  that  this  right
was  intended  . . .  and  was  guaranteed  to,  and  to  be  exer­
cised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as