America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?

[simple schoolboy]

Remember when gun owners were paranoid that folks were agitating to take their guns? I mean, that was crazy because no mainstream voices were promoting gun confiscation. Them was some good times.

[stip]

A piece similar to the USA Today feature on how the gun industry systematically protected themselves from the tactics used to hold the tobacco industry accountable.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/1 ... -industry/

[Green Habit]

A piece similar to the USA Today feature on how the gun industry systematically protected themselves from the tactics used to hold the tobacco industry accountable.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/1 ... -industry/

For the tl;dr gang, (and I also didn't read every single word), here are the five main points:

1) Immunity from lawsuits
2) Bans on federal research on guns
3) Laws reventing locations from creating gun-free zones
4) Lack of taxes on guns
5) Laws stopping doctors from discussing guns with their patients

Other than #4, I agree that these are bullshit. But I'm curious: even if these barriers didn't exist, would guns really fall out of favor in society like cigarettes did? To be a smoker, you necessarily have to regularly use tobacco. With regular usage comes regular damage, with the majority of smokers, if not directly dying from it, then suffering from it. And that death and suffering also impacts non-smokers that see it happened to loved ones.

You don't have to regularly use a gun to be a gun owner, though--and as ridiculously high as America's gun death rate may be, it's still dwarfed by the number of tobacco-related deaths. Most gun owners aren't going to see just how deadly guns can be, nor will their loved ones.

And come to think of it, while anti-smoking advocates tend to treat smokers with empathy, I'm not sure if I can say the same of anti-gun advocates toward gun owners. I've long felt that the way to convince people not to own guns is with some positivity in making the case that things aren't as unsafe in the world that it seems, to the point that they need to be so afraid to own a gun.

Anyway, a bit of a brain dump there, but while all those barriers set up by the gun lobby certainly are making things for difficult, I'm not sure if things would be that much better if those barriers didn't exist.

[stip]

Good points. This is entirely speculative, but the thing that might make a difference is the fear element. Other than second hand smoke smoking was a personal choice. If gun violence is framed as public health plus national embarrassment, plus fear for your life, plus enabling terrorism that might spark the kind of push that ended up being effective against tobacco.

Of course this is the absolute opposite approach to what you suggested

[simple schoolboy]

A piece similar to the USA Today feature on how the gun industry systematically protected themselves from the tactics used to hold the tobacco industry accountable.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/1 ... -industry/

For the tl;dr gang, (and I also didn't read every single word), here are the five main points:

1) Immunity from lawsuits
2) Bans on federal research on guns
3) Laws reventing locations from creating gun-free zones
4) Lack of taxes on guns
5) Laws stopping doctors from discussing guns with their patients

Other than #4, I agree that these are bullshit. But I'm curious: even if these barriers didn't exist, would guns really fall out of favor in society like cigarettes did? To be a smoker, you necessarily have to regularly use tobacco. With regular usage comes regular damage, with the majority of smokers, if not directly dying from it, then suffering from it. And that death and suffering also impacts non-smokers that see it happened to loved ones.

You don't have to regularly use a gun to be a gun owner, though--and as ridiculously high as America's gun death rate may be, it's still dwarfed by the number of tobacco-related deaths. Most gun owners aren't going to see just how deadly guns can be, nor will their loved ones.

And come to think of it, while anti-smoking advocates tend to treat smokers with empathy, I'm not sure if I can say the same of anti-gun advocates toward gun owners. I've long felt that the way to convince people not to own guns is with some positivity in making the case that things aren't as unsafe in the world that it seems, to the point that they need to be so afraid to own a gun.

Anyway, a bit of a brain dump there, but while all those barriers set up by the gun lobby certainly are making things for difficult, I'm not sure if things would be that much better if those barriers didn't exist.

I'm not sure I buy the comparison to cigarettes. Its not as if gun manufacturers routinely mislead the public about how their product functions, as the cigarette companies did. There also is the issue of safety risks for using their products in ways that violate the printed instructions . Suing gun manufacturers for their wares functioning as intended would be like suing Porsce for some guy going 100mph in a school zone and mowing down some kids.

[Green Habit]

Good points. This is entirely speculative, but the thing that might make a difference is the fear element. Other than second hand smoke smoking was a personal choice. If gun violence is framed as public health plus national embarrassment, plus fear for your life, plus enabling terrorism that might spark the kind of push that ended up being effective against tobacco.

Of course this is the absolute opposite approach to what you suggested

Public health is a real difficult argument, especially when most gun deaths (suicide, DV, accidents) aren't happening in public. I think it's safe to say that gun owners aren't nationally embarrassed and aren't going to be. I thought for a fleeting second that the "correct" type of "terrorism" could make some reconsider, but the latest talk over the no-fly list rendered that meaningless as well.

Fear I think is where it's at, but I'm trying to figure out how you're considering it given that you said this approach was the opposite to mine. I'm guessing along the lines of "fear that owning a gun will make you less safe"? If so, I agree in essence, but people are really good at deluding themselves into the idea that the power of the gun makes them safer instead. That's where I think if you could get people to chill out, and say "Hey, you don't really need a gun to make you safe", then just maybe we could get somewhere.

[Green Habit]

I'm not sure I buy the comparison to cigarettes. Its not as if gun manufacturers routinely mislead the public about how their product functions, as the cigarette companies did. There also is the issue of safety risks for using their products in ways that violate the printed instructions . Suing gun manufacturers for their wares functioning as intended would be like suing Porsce for some guy going 100mph in a school zone and mowing down some kids.

I'm not entirely convinced the gun manufacturers would lose in a neutral court of law. Problem is they've weighed the system deeply in their favor.

[stip]

Good points. This is entirely speculative, but the thing that might make a difference is the fear element. Other than second hand smoke smoking was a personal choice. If gun violence is framed as public health plus national embarrassment, plus fear for your life, plus enabling terrorism that might spark the kind of push that ended up being effective against tobacco.

Of course this is the absolute opposite approach to what you suggested

Public health is a real difficult argument, especially when most gun deaths (suicide, DV, accidents) aren't happening in public. I think it's safe to say that gun owners aren't nationally embarrassed and aren't going to be. I thought for a fleeting second that the "correct" type of "terrorism" could make some reconsider, but the latest talk over the no-fly list rendered that meaningless as well.

Fear I think is where it's at, but I'm trying to figure out how you're considering it given that you said this approach was the opposite to mine. I'm guessing along the lines of "fear that owning a gun will make you less safe"? If so, I agree in essence, but people are really good at deluding themselves into the idea that the power of the gun makes them safer instead. That's where I think if you could get people to chill out, and say "Hey, you don't really need a gun to make you safe", then just maybe we could get somewhere.

Public health on the victim/massacre side (like the concern over second hand smoke vs. what it did to the victim). My commend are generally directed towards how you might build a political coalition of gun opponents and marginal supporters interested in restricting gun rights out of a fear of being shot themselves. And with the fear point I just meant that this will play opposite to your hope that we might try a 'the world is less scary than you think' approach

Liberal gun control advocates are in a bind because fear narratives tend to reinforce conservative world views. They will probably not adopt your strategy, even though it might serve them best in the long term

[Kaius]

It's pretty obvious neither of you have spent much time in the Midwest.

[Green Habit]

Public health on the victim/massacre side (like the concern over second hand smoke vs. what it did to the victim). My commend are generally directed towards how you might build a political coalition of gun opponents and marginal supporters interested in restricting gun rights out of a fear of being shot themselves. And with the fear point I just meant that this will play opposite to your hope that we might try a 'the world is less scary than you think' approach

Liberal gun control advocates are in a bind because fear narratives tend to reinforce conservative world views. They will probably not adopt your strategy, even though it might serve them best in the long term

Happy 20,000th post!

I can cede that my path doesn't come with a good political vehicle. I guess that also demonstrates how I don't think there's a good political solution to this. I think the culture has to change and the the politics follows after that. I realize that will be deeply unsatisfying to gun control advocates, and I certainly don't blame them for trying political solutions even if I don't think they'll succeed any time soon.

[simple schoolboy]

I'm not sure I buy the comparison to cigarettes. Its not as if gun manufacturers routinely mislead the public about how their product functions, as the cigarette companies did. There also is the issue of safety risks for using their products in ways that violate the printed instructions . Suing gun manufacturers for their wares functioning as intended would be like suing Porsce for some guy going 100mph in a school zone and mowing down some kids.

I'm not entirely convinced the gun manufacturers would lose in a neutral court of law. Problem is they've weighed the system deeply in their favor.

SLAPP laws weigh the system in favor of the respondent. They seem to work pretty well. Perhaps something more along the lines would be appropriate.

The issue is that even responding to a frivolous case has a cost, and generally one cannot bill the complaining party for lawyer's fees. I imagine one or a few wealthy individuals could bankrupt most of the major arms manufacturers with lawyers fees. Even if they win on the merits, they still lose. Congress passed the relevant law because it was openly stated that anti-gun groups intended to use the tactic of suing them into oblivion. Of course, almost any industry could be targeted as such, but most don't gin up the same sort of emotion as guns.

I wonder if there are any liability shields for abortion providers...

[stip]

Public health on the victim/massacre side (like the concern over second hand smoke vs. what it did to the victim). My commend are generally directed towards how you might build a political coalition of gun opponents and marginal supporters interested in restricting gun rights out of a fear of being shot themselves. And with the fear point I just meant that this will play opposite to your hope that we might try a 'the world is less scary than you think' approach

Liberal gun control advocates are in a bind because fear narratives tend to reinforce conservative world views. They will probably not adopt your strategy, even though it might serve them best in the long term

Happy 20,000th post!

I can cede that my path doesn't come with a good political vehicle. I guess that also demonstrates how I don't think there's a good political solution to this. I think the culture has to change and the the politics follows after that. I realize that will be deeply unsatisfying to gun control advocates, and I certainly don't blame them for trying political solutions even if I don't think they'll succeed any time soon.

The politics can also change th culture. Laws may not have as much legitimacy at first but over time we grow used to them.

[stip]

I'm not sure I buy the comparison to cigarettes. Its not as if gun manufacturers routinely mislead the public about how their product functions, as the cigarette companies did. There also is the issue of safety risks for using their products in ways that violate the printed instructions . Suing gun manufacturers for their wares functioning as intended would be like suing Porsce for some guy going 100mph in a school zone and mowing down some kids.

I'm not entirely convinced the gun manufacturers would lose in a neutral court of law. Problem is they've weighed the system deeply in their favor.

SLAPP laws weigh the system in favor of the respondent. They seem to work pretty well. Perhaps something more along the lines would be appropriate.

The issue is that even responding to a frivolous case has a cost, and generally one cannot bill the complaining party for lawyer's fees. I imagine one or a few wealthy individuals could bankrupt most of the major arms manufacturers with lawyers fees. Even if they win on the merits, they still lose. Congress passed the relevant law because it was openly stated that anti-gun groups intended to use the tactic of suing them into oblivion. Of course, almost any industry could be targeted as such, but most don't gin up the same sort of emotion as guns.

I wonder if there are any liability shields for abortion providers...

As a strong anti-gun advocate I'm not particularly interested in the lawsuit approach. I wouldn't mind seeing a strategy that takes down the industry, but I readily concede that there is no reason to sue the manufacturers beyond failure to comply with whatevervregulations they are expected to follow.

[stip]

It's pretty obvious neither of you have spent much time in the Midwest.

My New York sensibilities are all over this post.

I wouldn't be surprised if the breakdown on gun attitudes was much more urban/rural rather than purely regional or liberal/conservative

[Dscans]

Just saw this on Facebook. Thoughts
http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/07/7-g ... -wont-die/
7 Gun Control Myths That Just Won’t Die
The debate over gun control and gun rights would be more productive if both sides focused on the facts instead of pushing myths about America's gun laws.

By Sean Davis


After every shooting, politicians and activists rush to the cameras or their keyboards to tell people exactly what should be done to stop mass shootings in the future. Gun control proponents demand more gun control. Gun rights advocates dig in their heels and explain why new laws won’t stop evil people from doing evil things, especially when current laws aren’t adequately enforced.

Unfortunately, the debate between the two sides is rarely illuminating, as it usually devolves into tired recitations of worn-out talking points about the issue. These talking points are invariably littered with myths and factual inaccuracies. Here are 7 myths about gun control that just won’t die.


1) The ‘Gun Show Loophole’ Allows Anyone, Even Criminals, To Get Guns
In reality, the so-called “gun show loophole” is a myth. It does not exist. There is no loophole in federal law that specifically exempts gun show transactions from any other laws normally applied to gun sales. Not one.

If you purchase a firearm from a federal firearms licensee (FFL) regardless of the location of the transaction — a gun store, a gun show, a gun dealer’s car trunk, etc. — that FFL must confirm that you are legally allowed to purchase that gun. That means the FFL must either run a background check on you via the federal NICS database, or confirm that you have passed a background check by examining your state-issued concealed carry permit or your government-issued purchase permit. There are zero exceptions to this federal requirement.

If an individual purchases a gun across state lines — from an individual or FFL which resides in a different state than the buyer — the buyer must undergo a background check, and the sale must be processed by an FFL in the buyer’s home state.


What does exist, however, is a federal exemption for sales between two private, non-FFL residents of the same state, regardless of whether that transaction happens at a gun show or not. The identity of the parties involved in the transaction, not the venue of the sale, is what matters under federal law. This federal exemption makes perfect sense: there’s no federal nexus for a purely private transaction between two private individuals who reside in the same state. Many states, including Oregon, Colorado, and Illinois, have enacted universal background checks in order to eliminate the exemption for same-state private firearms transactions.

Federal universal background checks may or may not be a wise idea — the U.S. Senate in 2013 explicitly refused to enact them — but referring to the federal exemption for private, same-state sales as a “gun show loophole” is misleading and factually inaccurate.


2) Nobody’s Demanding Gun Confiscation
We’ve all seen how this one plays out. In the wake of a shooting, a politician demands “common sense gun regulations.” Gun rights supporters then respond with something along the lines of, “He just wants to take our guns!” That criticism is then followed by mockery from various corners of progressive blogdom that no, you stupid hick, nobody wants to take your guns.


But that’s not true. A number of progressives do actually want to take your guns.

TPM’s Josh Marshall finally admitted earlier this week that progressives care a whole lot more about gun confiscation than they do about nibbling around the edges of existing gun laws.

“In other words, yes, we really do want to take your guns,” he wrote. “Maybe not all of them. But a lot of them.”

He’s not the only one. There’s also E.J. Dionne at the Washington Post, who scolded Republicans for refusing to endorse a nationwide gun confiscation program similar to one instituted in Australia in the mid-1990’s.

It’s not just leftist bloggers pushing for gun confiscation, though.

Take the president of the United States, for example. After the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, President Barack Obama made a statement that “we should politicize” shootings. He then cited radical gun confiscation laws in Australia and Great Britain as examples that the U.S. should follow:

We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.
The intent of Obama’s reference to Australia’s nationwide gun confiscation law, its ineffectiveness notwithstanding, couldn’t have been more clear. Yes, they really do want to take your guns.


3) Buying A Gun Is As Easy As Buying Groceries
Last March, President Barack Obama was asked about guns during a press conference, and he responded by saying, “It’s easier for you to buy a handgun and clips than it is for you to buy a fresh vegetable.” Ignoring for the moment that the president does not understand the difference between a clip and a magazine, his claim is not true.

It is not easier to buy a gun than it is to buy a fresh vegetable, or any canned vegetable for that matter. Never in my life have I been required to fill out federal form 4473 and have the cashier run a background check on me before being allowed to buy an onion.

There are no federal laws requiring onion dealers to register with the federal government prior to selling onions. There are no state laws requiring that you apply for and receive an onion purchase permit, complete with background check, prior to purchasing an onion. There are no onion waiting periods or limits on how many onions you can purchase within a certain period of time. Nor are there, to my knowledge, any state or local laws prohibiting the possession of onions in schools or government buildings.

Firearm manufacturing and sales are highly regulated by the federal government. Numerous complicated laws govern virtually every aspect of the process. Anyone who has purchased a gun before can you tell you in great detail that it is not as easy as buying a vegetable at a grocery store. It is an expensive and time-consuming process.

Some people may think gun control is a great idea and that it should be harder to buy a gun than it currently is, but they should refrain from suggesting that legally purchasing a firearm is easier, cheaper, and less time-consuming than buying a carrot. Because it’s not.


4) Concealed Carriers Don’t Prevent Mass Shootings
“Do armed civilians stop mass shooters?” the liberal magazine Mother Jones asked in 2012. “Actually, no.”

Mother Jones justified its assertion by citing its own analysis that of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012, not one was stopped by a civilian with a gun. Shocking, right? Not really, once you consider the logical fallacy underlying the Mother Jones claim.

The fact of the matter is that shootings that happen in an area where concealed carriers can immediately respond don’t generally become mass shootings. It’s a bit like saying locked doors and alarms don’t prevent burglaries by only citing burglaries that happened in buildings with no locked doors or alarms as proof of your thesis. It’s no coincidence that so many mass shootings happen in areas declared to be “gun-free zones” by authorities.

Instances of concealed carriers stopping shooters in their tracks are too numerous to count. Here are just a few examples found from a few seconds of Googling.

July 27, 2015:

A 62-year-old man with a gun in each hand fired at four people – including a 1-year-old boy – before a civilian with a concealed carry permit returned fire and wounded the shooter, cops told FOX19.
April 20, 2015:

Authorities say no charges will be filed against an Uber driver who shot and wounded a gunman who opened fire on a crowd of people in Logan Square over the weekend.

The driver had a concealed-carry permit and acted in the defense of himself and others, Assistant State’s Attorney Barry Quinn said in court Sunday.

A group of people had been walking in front of the driver around 11:50 p.m. Friday in the 2900 block of North Milwaukee Avenue when Everardo Custodio, 22, began firing into the crowd, Quinn said.

The driver pulled out a handgun and fired six shots at Custodio, hitting him several times, according to court records. Responding officers found Custodio lying on the ground, bleeding, Quinn said. No other injuries were reported.
September 22, 2015:

A 63-year-old autoworker with a concealed weapons license shot a gunman who was robbing a Warren, Michigan, bank, according to Fox 2 Detroit.
Concealed carriers can’t be expected to stop every shooting, just as police can’t be expected to prevent all crime. It is a fact, though, that concealed carriers regularly put an end to violent shootings.


5) The Second Amendment Only Applies To Muskets
This trope is a popular one among gun control advocates who imagine themselves as strict constructionists when it comes to Constitutional interpretation. Piers Morgan, the failed CNN host and British tabloid editor accused of hacking into celebrity voicemails in search of tabloid gossip, is the foremost advocate of the notion that the Second Amendment protects only the rights of Americans to carry muskets:


As Carol Roth noted, the refusal of the Founding Fathers to precisely name the types of arms which citizens have a right to keep and bear was intentional. The same can be said of their refusal to constrain our right of free expression to quill pens and bulky printing presses. The Second Amendment protects our right to own handguns just like the First Amendment protects our right to criticize the government using the Internet.

Both the text of the Second Amendment and the intent behind it are clear: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Law-abiding citizens have the right not only to own weapons, but to carry them as well. The Second Amendment isn’t about muskets or bayonets. It’s about the right of a free people to defend themselves with arms if necessary.


6) Gun Violence Is Skyrocketing
If you’ve spent any time on social media, you’ve seen the lamentations: gun violence is skyrocketing. It is an epidemic. Constant TV coverage of shootings can certainly make it seem that way. But the truth of the matter is that gun violence is actually way down. It hasn’t skyrocketed; it’s plummeted.

A 2013 study from the Pew Research Center found that gun violence had fallen by nearly 50 percent since its 1993 peak:

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
A 2014 analysis from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) showed a significant decline in violent crime over the last five years:

FBI violent crime

In 2013, the latest year for which complete data are available, the number of homicides in which a firearm was involved totaled 8,454, representing a 12 percent drop compared to the number of gun homicides in 2003. And the 2003 figure represented a 41 percent drop from the gun homicide total in 1994, the earliest year for which data are readily accessible on the FBI’s website.

All told, the number of gun homicides in the U.S. has fallen by nearly 50 percent over the last two decades. Any amount of violent crime is too much, but it’s wrong to assert in the face of all evidence that gun violence in the U.S. is skyrocketing.


7) Gun-Free Zones Prevent Gun Violence
Nothing represents wishful thinking in the face of evidence like the proliferation of so-called gun-free zones. These are areas in which guns have been explicitly banned by law, or banned by property owners or local authorities. They are almost always accompanied by a sign notifying passersby that guns are banned on the premises. The intent behind the idea of gun-free zones is simple and noble: what better way to prevent gun violence than by banning guns?

Unfortunately, the reality of human nature tends to stomp all over those good intentions. Time and again, deadly mass shootings occur in gun-free zones. Why? Because the evil mind intent on wreaking havoc wants nothing more than the ability to do so without getting shot back. What better place to go than a gun-free zone?

The sad fact of the matter is that gun-free zones are anything but.

The Oregon shooting happened in a gun-free zone. The Lafayette movie theater shooting happened in a gun-free zone. The Chattanooga shootings happened in gun-free zones. The Ft. Hood massacre even happened in a gun-free zone, believe it or not.

Gun-free zones may be backed by pure intentions, but the reality is that they just end up being soft targets for evil killers hellbent on destruction.

[nyquillyn]

I think a lot of people use the term "gun show loophole" to mean "private sale loophole". Also, it's not entirely inaccurate when in a state like Arizona, gun dealers essential sell "off-license" at gun shows and other "trade" events. It doesn't help matters when you also have multiple law-enforcement officials, including "America's Toughest Sheriff" who openly say they don't give a shit about gun sales and will not enforce federal gun laws.

[Norah]

but let's instead deflect the conversation to how the phrase is technically inaccurate

[stip]

Point by point thoughts


1. Fine, people are using the wrong shorthand.

2. The bottom line is that at this point in time, regardless of people's intentions, there are no legislative calls and no political coalitions that can make this happen in a comprehensive way. The odds of this happening with a particular type of weapon (certain types of magazines, automatic rifles, etc) is different.

3. Maybe it depends on where the buyer is. In some food deserts it may be easier to get a gun. But obviously that's over inflated political rhetoric.

4. A collection of anecdotal stories are not proof, and they can be countered with examples of concealed carry stories that exacerbated violence. Fair point abut how this might be a tough thing to measure, which speaks, first and foremost, for the need to lift restrictions on actually researching gun violence.

5. He's wrong on this, the fact that one disgraced journalist supports the interpretation aside (how he became the foremost advocate is beyond me). Citing Carol Roth as an expert (she's a radio host) as opposed to a second amendment scholar is an equally odd choice.

Having said that, the language of the constitution is generally ambiguous enough that the amendment can be read however you want to read it. It's largely irrelevant if you have the right kinds of justices on the supreme court.

This is also a particularly odd fixation (only applies to muskets) on a particularly obscure point about second amendment arguments in favor of gun control.

6. Fair point. He doesn't address whether mass shootings are on the rise, but overall that's true, with the caveat that then umber is still ludicrously high.

7. This is a problem with federalism and gun laws. First off, gun free zones do likely prevent accidental/rage shootings (following the same logic as point 4). A gun free zone will not stop a premeditated massacre but I don't believe those are the principle cause of gun deaths--just the most spectacular. For that larger point, as long as we live in a country with porous state borders, weak enforcement, and different regulations it is harder for any of these policies to be effective. That's why federal action is ultimately necessary.

[McParadigm]

A 2013 study from the Pew Research Center found that gun violence had fallen by nearly 50 percent since its 1993 peak

Of course, the vast majority of the decline happened during the Clinton administration's gun control efforts...

1992: 17,488

1996: 14,037

1999: 10,828

2003: 11,920

2005: 12,352

2010: 11,078

[Green Habit]

Well, the Supreme Court did a good job being topical: they just denied cert on a challenge to an assault weapons ban in a Chicago suburb. So there's your green light to passing such a ban in other jurisdictions if you so demand.

But two justices dissented from the denial of cert, and you can probably guess which two they were.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cour ... r_6j37.pdf

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether law-abiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers ... gives householders adequate means of defense.”

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.

As I've said before, I think that's the fatal flaw in Heller, the idea that specific weapons can be categorically protected, instead of simply protecting a general right to self defense.