TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge:

In 2010, the Georgia legislature, apparently concerned that the carrying of weapons1 and long guns2 would likely present an unreasonable risk of harm to people who assemble in eight specific locations, enacted a statute barring the unrestricted carrying of weapons or long guns in those locations. O.C.G.A. § 16-11-127(b) (this provision is hereinafter referred to as the "Carry Law").3 This statutory bar does not apply, however, to a license holder4 if, on arriving at one of the eight locations, such person "approaches security or management personnel upon arrival ... and notifies such security or management personnel of the presence of the weapon or long gun and explicitly follows the security or management personnel's direction for removing, securing, storing, or temporarily surrendering such weapon or long gun." Id. § 16-11-127(d)(2). The refusal to approach security or management personnel or to comply with management's direction is a misdemeanor. Id. § 16-11-127(b).

One of the eight locations designated in the Carry Law is a "place of worship." Id. § 16-11-127(b)(4). In this case, Edward Stone and Jonathan Wilkins ("Plaintiffs") each allege in their Amended Complaint that they regularly attend religious services, possess a weapons carry license, and "would like to carry a handgun" while in a place of worship. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Carry Law is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to them because compliance with § 16-11-127 will violate their First Amendment right to the free exercise of their religion5 and their Second Amendment right to bear arms.6 The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia found no merit in either claim and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).7 Plaintiffs now appeal the District Court's judgment, arguing that the allegations in the Amended Complaint are sufficient to make out a case that the Carry Law's place of worship provision is unconstitutional either on its face or as applied to Plaintiffs.8

I.

This case began on July 12, 2010, in the Superior Court of Upson County, Georgia. Plaintiffs sued the State of Georgia and Upson County in a two-count complaint presenting the constitutional claims referred to above and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.9 The State and the County removed the case to the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add two defendants, the Governor of Georgia and the Manager of Upson County, and two counts. Their Amended Complaint then read as follows: Count 1, a "direct action," asserted that the Carry Law "interfered with" Plaintiffs' free exercise of religion; Count 2, brought under § 1983, replicated Count 1; Count 3, another "direct action," asserted that the Carry Law infringes Plaintiffs' right to keep and bear arms; Count 4, brought under § 1983, replicated Count 3.10

The State of Georgia and the Governor jointly moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)11 on the grounds of Eleventh Amendment immunity12 and Plaintiffs' lack of standing to sue, and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for relief. Upson County and the County Manager separately moved the court to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for Plaintiffs's lack of standing, and under Rule 12(b)(6) because the Amended Complaint failed to state a claim for relief.

In addressing the defendants' motions, the District Court bypassed the question of whether Plaintiffs had standing to sue and went straight to the question of whether any of the counts of the Amended Complaint stated a claim for relief. The court found that none of the counts stated a claim, and therefore dismissed the respective counts on the merits. The court dismissed all counts against the State on the additional ground of Eleventh Amendment immunity.13 Before we decide whether the District Court erred in dismissing the four counts of the Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), we must address an issue the District Court bypassed: whether Plaintiffs lacked standing to sue.14 It is to that issue that we turn now.

II.

"The judicial Power [of the United States] shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution." U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. To establish an Article III "case," see Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 492-93, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1148-49, 173 L.Ed.2d 1 (2009) ("In limiting the judicial power to `Cases' and `Controversies,' Article III of the Constitution restricts it to the traditional role of Anglo-American courts, which is to redress or prevent actual or imminently threatened injury to persons caused by private or official violation of law."), a plaintiff must establish standing, which requires a showing that

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-181, 120 S.Ct. 693, 704, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2136, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)). Case law from both the Supreme Court and this court is clear: because we must afford special protection for the exercise of constitutional rights, a plaintiff does not always need to risk prosecution to obtain preventative relief when his or her exercise of a constitutional right at stake. See Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459, 94 S.Ct. 1209, 1215, 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974) ("[I]t is not necessary that [the plaintiff] first expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge [the] statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights."); Jacobs v. Florida Bar, 50 F.3d 901, 904 (11th Cir.1995) ("A plaintiff stating that he `intends to engage in a specific course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest... does not have to expose himself to enforcement to be able to challenge the law.'" (quoting ACLU v. Florida Bar, 999 F.2d 1486, 1492 (11th Cir.1993))). Instead, a plaintiff with the exercise of a constitutional right at stake may seek declaratory or injunctive relief prior to the challenged statute's enforcement. See Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 150-51, 28 S.Ct. 441, 450, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908) (concluding that state officials may be enjoined by a federal court of equity and that a federal court may, in appropriate circumstances, enjoin future state criminal prosecutions if the state officials threaten to enforce an unconstitutional statute).

The "injury" in this pre-enforcement context is the well-founded fear that comes with the risk of subjecting oneself to prosecution for engaging in allegedly protected activity. Babbitt v. UFW, 442 U.S. 289, 298-99, 99 S.Ct. 2301, 2309, 60 L.Ed.2d 895 (1979) ("When plaintiffs `do not claim that they have ever been threatened with prosecution, that a prosecution is likely, or even that a prosecution is remotely possible,' they do not allege a dispute susceptible to resolution by a federal court." (quoting Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 42, 91 S.Ct. 746, 749, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971))); see also Virginia v. Am. Booksellers Ass'n, Inc., 484 U.S. 383, 393, 108 S.Ct. 636, 643, 98 L.Ed.2d 782 (1988) (finding that allegations were sufficient when plaintiffs alleged "actual and well-founded fear that the law will be enforced against them").

This court has held that a risk of prosecution is sufficient if the plaintiff alleges (1) that an actual threat of prosecution was made, (2) that prosecution is likely, or (3) that a credible threat of prosecution exists based on the circumstances. See Jacobs, 50 F.3d at 904. To show that a prosecution is likely or a credible threat exists, a plaintiff must show that there is "a realistic danger of sustaining direct injury as a result of the statute's operation or enforcement." Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Florida Bar, 999 F.2d 1486, 1492 (11th Cir.1993) (quoting Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat. Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298, 99 S.Ct. 2301, 2308, 60 L.Ed.2d 895 (1979)). We look to see "whether the plaintiff is seriously interested in disobeying, and the defendant seriously intent on enforcing the challenged measure." Id. at 1493 (quoting Int'l Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness v. Eaves, 601 F.2d 809, 818 (5th Cir.1979)).

Although the Amended Complaint is lacking in many respects, we believe that Plaintiffs have alleged a credible threat of prosecution under the Carry Law sufficient to establish standing to bring a facial challenge. They are license holders who regularly attend services at a place of worship. Moreover, they "would like to carry a handgun in such place of worship for the protection of [their] family and [themselves], but [they are] in fear of arrest and prosecution." It thus seems clear that Plaintiffs are seriously interested in engaging in conduct that is arguably prohibited by the Carry Law and that could give rise to prosecution by state authorities. Nothing in the defendants' answers suggests that the Carry Law will not be vigorously enforced. Therefore, we cannot say that there exists only a "speculative risk" of prosecution; rather, Plaintiffs appear to be subject to a legitimate threat that they will be prosecuted for activity that, they believe, is constitutionally protected. And if the court granted the relief that Plaintiffs seek, we would surely provide redress for the alleged constitutional infringement at issue.

III.

Having concluded that Plaintiffs have standing to prosecute their claims, we turn to the question of whether the District Court erred in dismissing Counts 1 and 2 of the Amended Complaint — the allegation that Plaintiffs' forced compliance with the Carry Law will infringe their right to the free exercise of their religion, in violation of the First Amendment.

A.

The First Amendment provides, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]" U.S. Const. amend. I (emphasis added). The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is applicable to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 903, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940). The protections afforded by the Free Exercise Clause prevent the government from discriminating against the exercise of religious beliefs or conduct motivated by religious beliefs. See Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 532, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 2226, 124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993) ("At a minimum, the protections of the Free Exercise Clause pertain if the law at issue discriminates against some or all religious beliefs or regulates or prohibits conduct because it is undertaken for religious reasons.").

1.

Counts 1 and 2 allege that the Carry Law "interferes with the free exercise of religion by Plaintiffs by prohibiting them from engaging in activities in a place of worship when those activities are permitted throughout the state." Count 1, labeled a "direct action," purports to state a cause of action directly under the First Amendment. The Amended Complaint, however, does not cite the statutory source of the District Court's jurisdiction to entertain Count 1; nor does the District Court's order dismissing it. The District Court ruled on the merits of Count 1; thus, we assume that the court found jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which gives the district courts "original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution ... of the United States." The First Amendment does not explicitly create the cause of action Count 1 attempts to assert, and we are aware of no case holding that such cause of action is implied when the relief a plaintiff seeks is plainly available through a mechanism created by Congress.15 In light of this, the District Court did not err in dismissing Count 1 pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for relief.

Count 2 asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.16 Once again, neither the Amended Complaint nor the District Court's order cites the source of the District Court's jurisdiction to consider the claim. Because the court addressed Count 2 on the merits, we assume that it found jurisdiction under § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, which gives the District Courts "original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person... [t]o redress the deprivation, under color of any State law ... of any right ... secured by the Constitution of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

Section 1983 gives a party who claims to have suffered the deprivation of a constitutional right at the hands of a person acting "under color of" state law "an action at law [or] suit in equity" against such person "for redress." 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In this case, the redress Plaintiffs seek is a declaration that the "place of worship" provision is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to them. The State of Georgia, however, is not a "person" subject to suit under § 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65-66, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2309, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (concluding that a State is not a "person" under § 1983). The District Court dismissed the State under the Eleventh Amendment, but could have dismissed it on the ground that it is not amenable to § 1983 liability. Upson County would be subject to § 1983 liability, though, if it caused through the enforcement of County policy the constitutional deprivation Plaintiffs say they would suffer, but the Amended Complaint fails to allege that their prosecution for refusing to comply with the Carry Law would be pursuant to County policy.17 Hence, the District Court properly dismissed Count 2 against the County. The County Manager is amenable to § 1983 liability, but Count 2 contains no allegation of wrongdoing specific to him. Accordingly, the court did not err in dismissing Count 2 as to the Manager.

This brings us to the Governor. Part of the Governor's job is to ensure the enforcement of Georgia's statutes.18 He is subject to suit under § 1983, and the District Court properly entertained Plaintiffs' Count 2 allegations against him. We now address the question of whether Count 2 states a claim for declaratory relief against the Governor sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

2.

To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must "plead factual matter that, if taken as true, states a claim" that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 666, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1942-43, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). This necessarily requires that a plaintiff include factual allegations for each essential element of his or her claim. Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 707 n. 2 (11th Cir.2010) ("[C]omplaints ... must now contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory." (internal quotations omitted)); Am. Dental Ass'n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir.2010) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)).

Plaintiffs allege that the Carry Law "interferes with the free exercise of religion by Plaintiffs by prohibiting them from engaging in activities in a place of worship when those activities are generally permitted throughout the state." Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 39, 42. This so-called prohibition applies to anyone who enters a place of worship — regardless of the person's religious preference. Count 2 is styled as both a facial challenge, see United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 2100, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) (holding that, to succeed on a facial challenge, a plaintiff must prove "that no set of circumstances exists under which the [statute] would be valid," or in other words, that the law is unconstitutional in all of its applications),19 and an as-applied challenge.20

We conclude that the Amended Complaint fails to state a Free Exercise Clause challenge because Plaintiffs omit any factual matter showing how the Carry Law burdens a sincerely held religious belief. Plaintiffs argue that such an allegation is unnecessary if a law is subject to strict scrutiny because it is not neutral or generally applicable.21 The problem with that argument is that it misconstrues clear, well-established First Amendment precedent from both the Supreme Court and this court.22 Given that precedent, they have failed to state a plausible First Amendment claim.

B.

1.

First Amendment Free Exercise Clause precedent is clear: a plaintiff must allege a constitutionally impermissible burden on a sincerely held religious belief to survive a motion to dismiss. This is so because, as a threshold issue — before a court even considers whether a law is subject to the rational basis test or, alternatively, strict scrutiny — a court must be able to determine that the protection of the Free Exercise Clause is triggered.23

The Supreme Court has reiterated time and time again that personal preferences and secular beliefs do not warrant the protection of the Free Exercise Clause. See Frazee v. Illinois Dep't of Employment Sec., 489 U.S. 829, 833, 109 S.Ct. 1514, 1517, 103 L.Ed.2d 914 (1989) ("There is no doubt that `[o]nly beliefs rooted in religion are protected by the Free Exercise Clause[.]' Purely secular views do not suffice." (quoting Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp't. Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 713, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 1430, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981))); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-216, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 1533, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972). Put another way, a complaint fails to state a Free Exercise claim if it does not allege that (1) the plaintiff holds a belief, not a preference, that is sincerely held and religious in nature, not merely secular; and (2) the law at issue in some way impacts the plaintiff's ability to either hold that belief or act pursuant to that belief. See Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, 508 U.S. at 532, 113 S.Ct. at 2226 ("At a minimum, the protections of the Free Exercise Clause pertain if the law at issue discriminates against some or all religious beliefs or regulates or prohibits conduct because it is undertaken for religious reasons.").

Despite Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary, the Supreme Court's Church of the Lukumi Babalu24 decision reaffirms that to survive a motion to dismiss all Free Exercise Clause challenges must include allegations that the law at issue creates a constitutionally impermissible burden on a sincerely held religious belief.25 This court has followed the Supreme Court's lead, see Watts v. Fla. Int'l Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1294 (11th Cir.2007) (Carnes, J.) ("To plead a valid free exercise claim, [a plaintiff] must allege that the government has impermissibly burdened one of his `sincerely held religious beliefs.'" (quoting Frazee v. Ill. Dep't of Emp't Sec., 489 U.S. 829, 834, 109 S.Ct. 1514, 1517, 103 L.Ed.2d 914 (1989))), and our sister circuits are in accord with our position.26 With this pleading issue now clear, we turn to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.

2.

To be brief, the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for relief under the First Amendment. See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. We searched the Amended Complaint to no avail in an attempt to find factual allegations that could possibly be construed as alleging that the Carry Law imposes a constitutionally impermissible burden on one of Plaintiffs' sincerely held religious beliefs. At various points, Plaintiffs allege that they would like to carry a handgun in a place of worship for the protection either of themselves, their family, their flock, or other members of the Tabernacle. Plaintiffs conclude by alleging that the Carry Law interferes with their free exercise of religion by prohibiting them from engaging in activities in a place of worship when those activities are generally permitted throughout the State. That Plaintiffs "would like" to carry a firearm in order to be able to act in "self-defense" is a personal preference, motivated by a secular purpose. As we note supra, there is no First Amendment protection for personal preferences; nor is there protection for secular beliefs. United States v. DeWitt, 95 F.3d 1374, 1375 (8th Cir.1996) ("Nevertheless, the Free Exercise Clause does not protect purely secular views or personal preferences." (citing Frazee v. Ill. Dep't of Emp't Sec., 489 U.S. at 833, 109 S.Ct. at 1517)). The allegations in the Amended Complaint, as Plaintiffs chose to frame their case, do not state a Free Exercise claim.27

In sum, conclusory allegations that the Carry Law interferes with Plaintiffs' free exercise of religion are not sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Their Free Exercise claim is not plausible, see Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949, and the District Court correctly dismissed it.28

IV.

We now consider Plaintiffs' Second Amendment claims, in Counts 3 and 4, that the Carry Law infringed on their right to bear arms. The Second Amendment reads, "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." U.S. Const. amend. II. The Supreme Court drastically changed the impact of the Second Amendment in the wake of two of its recent decisions: District of Columbia v. Heller29 and McDonald v. City of Chicago.30

In Heller, the Court held for the first time that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing" individual right to keep and bear arms. 554 U.S. at 592, 128 S.Ct. at 2797. In so holding, the Court struck down a prohibition of the possession of operable handguns in one's home.31 The Court reached its holding after an extensive discussion of the background of the Second Amendment at the time of drafting, reasoning that, while "self-defense had little to do with codification; it was the central component of the right itself." Id. at 599, 128 S.Ct. at 2801 (emphasis in original). The Court concluded that the District of Columbia's ban made it impossible to use a handgun for the "core lawful purpose of self-defense." Id. at 630, 128 S.Ct. at 2818. The Court went to great lengths to emphasize the special place that the home — an individual's private property — occupies in our society. See Heller, 554 U.S. at 628-29, 128 S.Ct. at 2817-18 (emphasizing that "the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" in the home and emphasizing the special role of handguns as "the most preferred firearm in the nation to `keep' and use for protection of one's home and family" (internal quotation marks omitted)). McDonald made the "Second Amendment binding on the States and their subdivisions," through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See McDonald, 130 S.Ct. at 3046.32

In Counts 3 and 4 Plaintiffs allege that "[the Carry Law] infringes on the rights of Plaintiffs to keep and bear arms, in violation of the Second Amendment, by prohibiting them from possessing weapons in a place of worship." Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 45, 48. As with their First Amendment claims, Plaintiffs brought both a "direct action," in Count 3, and a § 1983 action, in Count 4. Many of the same pleading deficiencies of the Amended Complaint that we found in Plaintiffs' First Amendment claims (Counts 1 and 2) also plague their Second Amendment claims (Counts 3 and 4); we need not reiterate those problems.33 Our inquiry boils down to whether Plaintiffs' § 1983 claim entitles them to declaratory relief against the Governor.

Plaintiffs frame their Second Amendment attack as both a facial and an as-applied challenge in a pre-enforcement review. We view the Second Amendment challenge as essentially raising only a facial challenge.34 As we stated with respect to Plaintiffs' Free Exercise claim, Plaintiffs must show that the Carry Law is unconstitutional in all applications to prevail in their facial challenge. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987). One common application of the Carry Law would be when a license holder wants to carry a firearm in a place of worship where management of the place of worship prohibits carrying. To state a facial challenge, therefore, Plaintiffs must take the position that the Second Amendment protects a right to bring a firearm on the private property of another against the wishes of the owner. Put another way, Plaintiffs must argue that the individual right protected by the Second Amendment, in light of Heller and McDonald, trumps a private property owner's right to exclusively control who, and under what circumstances, is allowed on his or her own premises.35 In short, we read Plaintiffs' claim to assume the following: management of a place of worship is likely to bar license holders from carrying an unsecured firearm on the premises; the license holders are unlikely to comply with management's instructions; management is likely to report such conduct to law enforcement; the license holders are likely to be arrested by for their refusal to comply with management's instructions; and the arrest establishes a Second Amendment violation.36

Heller commands that, in passing on a Second Amendment claim, courts must read the challenged statute in light of the historical background of the Second Amendment. See 554 U.S. at 592, 128 S.Ct. at 2797 ("We look to [the historical background of the Second Amendment] because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it `shall not be infringed.'" (emphasis omitted)). Because a place of worship is private property, not public property, it is particularly important that we understand the individual right to bear arms in light of the historical background of criminal law, tort law, and property law; for that body of law establishes the rights of private property owners. In subpart A, we describe this historical background. In subpart B, we identify the scope of any pre-existing right to bear arms on the private property of another.

A.

We begin our review by describing the historical background of the Second Amendment.

In the Commentaries on the Laws of England, William Blackstone described a private property owner's right to exclusive control over his or her own property as a "sacred and inviolable right[]." 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *140. Blackstone wrote,

2 id. *2. Blackstone also discussed how a license holder who enters private property does not have the same rights as a property owner. See id. (emphasizing that the right of a property owner is in "total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe"). In other words, a guest is able to enter or stay on private property only with the owner's permission. A guest is removable at the owner's discretion.37

Turning to common law tort principles, if a person enters upon the land of another without the owner's permission or if a person remains on the land against the owner's wishes, then the person becomes a trespasser. At common law, this status implicated the law of torts — allowing the owner to initiate a civil action against the trespasser. See 2 Frederick Pollock & Frederic William Maitland, The History of English Law 41 (Legal Classic Library special ed. 1982) (2d ed. 1899) (noting that one should look to "the law of crimes" and "the law of torts and civil injuries").38 Blackstone elaborated on the private wrong of trespass:

3 William Blackstone, Commentaries *209.39 Implied in this private action, as Blackstone explained it, is an exclusive right of an owner to eject an individual from the owner's property and initiate a civil trespass action.40

In addition, criminal law principles drawn from the common law reinforce the fundamental nature of a property owner's rights. In The History of English Law, Frederick Pollock and Frederic William Maitland note:

2 Pollock & Maitland, supra, at 41. Blackstone reiterates this position, describing trespass as an "offence against the public peace." 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries *147. The criminal offense of trespass, as set forth in several ancient statutes, included "any forcible entry, or forcible detainer after peaceable entry, into any lands." Id. Pollock and Maitland offer a similar view: "[T]here will be a trespass with force and arms if a man's body, goods or land have been unlawfully touched." 2 Pollock & Maitland, supra, at 526.41

B.

Thus, property law, tort law, and criminal law provide the canvas on which our Founding Fathers drafted the Second Amendment. A clear grasp of this background illustrates that the pre-existing right codified in the Second Amendment does not include protection for a right to carry a firearm in a place of worship against the owner's wishes. Quite simply, there is no constitutional infirmity when a private property owner exercises his, her, or its — in the case of a place of worship — right to control who may enter, and whether that invited guest can be armed, and the State vindicates that right. This situation, being a likely application of the Carry Law, illustrates that Plaintiffs cannot show that all or most applications of the Carry Law are unconstitutional. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987).

A place of worship's right, rooted in the common law, to forbid possession of firearms on its property is entirely consistent with the Second Amendment. Surely, given the Court's pronouncement that the Second Amendment merely "codified a pre-existing right," Plaintiffs cannot contend that the Second Amendment in any way abrogated the well established property law, tort law, and criminal law that embodies a private property owner's exclusive right to be king of his own castle. By codifying a pre-existing right, the Second Amendment did not expand, extend, or enlarge the individual right to bear arms at the expense of other fundamental rights; rather, the Second Amendment merely preserved the status quo of the right that existed at the time.42 Indeed, numerous colonial leaders, as well as scholars whose work influenced the Founding Fathers, embraced the concept that a man's (or woman's) right to control his (or her) own private property occupied a special role in American society and in our freedom. See William Tudor, Life of James Otis 66-67 (1823) (quoting a speech from 1761 given by James Otis, who stated that "one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one's house. A man's house is his castle."); John Locke, Two Treatises on Government, 209-10 (1821) ("[Property] being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men.").

An individual's right to bear arms as enshrined in the Second Amendment, whatever its full scope, certainly must be limited by the equally fundamental right of a private property owner to exercise exclusive dominion and control over its land. The Founding Fathers placed the right to private property upon the highest of pedestals, standing side by side with the right to personal security that underscores the Second Amendment. As Blackstone observed,

1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *129.

Blackstone talks not of sacrificing one of the "principal or primary" rights for another, but rather of "preservation of these, inviolate." Id. (emphasis added). He concludes that all of the three fundamental rights of personal security, personal liberty, and private property can, and must, coexist together to fully protect civil liberties. Id. It is simply beyond rational dispute that the Founding Fathers, through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, sought to protect the fundamental right of private property, not to eviscerate it. See John Adams, Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States (1787), reprinted in 6 John Adams, The Works of John Adams, 3, 9 (Charles Francis Adams ed., 1851) ("The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."); James Madison, Property (1792), reprinted in 6 The Writings of James Madison 101, 102 (Gaillard Hunt ed., 1906) ("Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own." (emphasis in original)); Thomas Paine, Essay dated December 23, 1776, reprinted in Thomas Paine, The Crisis 8 (2009 ed.) (1776) ("[I]f a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to `bind me in all cases whatsoever' to his absolute will, am I to suffer it? What signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? If we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other.").

Plaintiffs, in essence, ask us to turn Heller on its head by interpreting the Second Amendment to destroy one cornerstone of liberty — the right to enjoy one's private property — in order to expand another — the right to bear arms. This we will not do. If, as Blackstone argues, our concept of civil liberties depends on a three-legged stool of rights — personal security, personal liberty, and private property — it would be unwise indeed to cut off one leg entirely only to slightly augment another. Rather, our task is to read the Second Amendment's pre-existing right alongside the equally important rights protected by the Constitution in order to strengthen all three legs and thereby better secure the foundation of our liberty. When the Second Amendment is understood in its proper historical context, it becomes readily apparent that the Amendment codified a pre-existing right that was circumscribed by the common law rights of an owner under property law, tort law, and criminal law. Heller's expounding of the pre-existing right enshrined in the Second Amendment does nothing to change this.

In sum, to the extent Plaintiffs' argument implies that the Second Amendment — in light of the Court's decisions in Heller and McDonald — somehow abrogates the right of a private property owner — here, a place of worship — to determine for itself whether to allow firearms on its premises and, if so, under what circumstances, the argument badly misses the mark. We conclude that the Second Amendment does not give an individual a right to carry a firearm on a place of worship's premises against the owner's wishes because such right did not pre-exist the Amendment's adoption. Enforcing the Carry Law against a license holder who carries a firearm on private property against the owner's instructions would therefore be constitutional. Plaintiffs' facial challenge fails because the Carry Law is capable of numerous constitutional applications. See Salerno, 481 U.S. at 745, 107 S.Ct. at 2100.

V.

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the District Court's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of Counts 1 through 4 of the Amended Complaint.

SO ORDERED.