How did the majority and dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller reach different conclusions using historical evidence?

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court majority and dissent reached opposing conclusions by interpreting the Second Amendment through different historical lenses.

Writing for the majority, Antonin Scalia employed an originalist approach, arguing that the amendment’s operative clause codifies an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense, a right he traced to English common law and the English Bill of Rights (1689). The majority contended that the amendment’s preamble—referencing a "well regulated Militia"—is consistent with this individual right, as the framers believed that disarming citizens was the primary method used to destroy a militia.1

In contrast, the dissent, led by Justice John Paul Stevens, argued that the court failed to provide new historical evidence to support an individual-right interpretation. The dissent maintained that the preamble disambiguates the operative clause, supporting a "collective-right" view that links firearm possession to militia service. Furthermore, the dissent criticized the majority for misinterpreting the precedent set in United States v. Miller and for disregarding the collective-right consensus held by previous courts.1