One of the most important factors of this case is the dissenting opinion of Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Stevens stated that the judgment reached by the court was a strained decision which was also supported by a reading which was unpersuasive. He continued to say that the decision had overturned a precedent which had stood for a long time and also that the court had bestowed the law in a dramatic upheaval. Stevens states that it was notable of the amendment because it had omitted any of the statement of the needs that were associated with the individual's rights to utilize firearms when hunting or also in self defense and that this rights were present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont (Gary, 2008).
The dissent of Justice Stevens can be seen to be focused on four points of disagreement. One of the point of disagreement is that the Founders did not intend to make the individuals rights in possession of guns an aspect of the Second Amendment and if they intended it they would have made that clause expressly in the Second Amendment. The other point of disagreement is that the preamble concerning the militia and that the exact phrase which mentions to keep and bear arms is only applicable to the state militias only and not all individuals according to the Second Amendment.