The Folly of an "Assault Weapons" Ban - Part 2

Monday, September 15, 2008

Part 1 explained that the "assault weapons" ban that expired in 2004 applied only to certain semiautomatic firearms, commonly used for self-defense and sporting purposes. The clarification was necessary, because the ban supporters either did not understand the differences between semiautomatic firearms equipped with certain features and fully automatic weapons or, more likely, the ban supporters cynically manipulated people's unfounded fears of "scary looking" guns for political purposes.

The weapons previously affected by the expired ban are no more powerful than semiautomatic pistols and rifles used for self-defense, hunting, and competition every day. In fact, some supposed "assault weapons" are less powerful than many hunting rifles. A bayonet mount, folding stock, or flash suppressor does not provide any criminal with an advantage.

Moreover, these types of weapons are used in very few crimes, much fewer than crimes committed with other weapons, knives, and fists. Gun control advocates have been unable to demonstrate preferences by criminals for any particular firearms, whether "assault weapons" or "Saturday night specials" are the villains du jour. The only real distinguishing feature between firearms used for self-defense, sporting or competitive purposes and those used in crime is that criminals do not usually feel the need to comply with gun control laws, while the majority of Americans do.

Attempts to restrict gun ownership based on arbitrary criteria and irrationality are part of a scheme to gradually erode your rights until law abiding citizens are powerless against threats of all types. Now that Americans have a clear, individual, Constitutional right to keep and bear arms under Heller, we must protect those rights from attacks brought by those only interested in increasing their political power.

Heller, High Emotions, and Consequences

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Controversy surrounding gun control issues seems to have dissipated somewhat following the demonstrated effectiveness of shall issue concealed carry laws and many states' adoption of the same. However, Second Amendment supporters still have a long way to go.

Even after SCOTUS recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2821-22 (2008), D.C. denied Dick Heller's attempt to register a semiautomatic .45, because the city's law defines any gun that loads from the bottom or is capable of holding more than 12 rounds at a time as a "machine gun." Mr. Heller later successfully registered a single-action Colt .22 revolver. Because the Heller challenge was narrowly tailored to address only the most onerous portions of the city's ban (and thus maximize the chances for success), a host of unreasonable restrictions remain. The meaning of those restrictions is unclear, but some have opined that they effectively prevent any use of a handgun for home self-defense. The Heller plaintiffs recently filed a complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief, and Writ of Mandamus to force the city to comply with the SCOTUS ruling.

What's behind all of this? I may be a little biased, but I'm not a die-hard Scalia fan, and the Heller opinion seems clear to me. My position is that some people on both sides of the issue are caught up in too much emotion.

In my private law practice, I advised employers following Minnesota's adoption of its shall issue concealed carry law. That law correctly allows private employers and other private property owners the option to ban concealed firearms from their premises provided a particular warning process is implemented. Private property owners have the right to take into consideration their potential civil liability for acts committed on their premises by a permit holder (even though the data suggest that permit holders as a group are more law-abiding than the general population). But I propose that employers should also consider the reverse: What liability may result by an employer's denial of personal protection to a permit holder employee? The legal theory may be novel, but the factual scenario is not. Imagine a female employee who is working late and is assaulted on her way through the company parking lot because the employer prohibited her from exercising her concealed carry rights. Is this theory any more unusual than class action suits against firearms manufacturers and trans-fat pushing fast-food restaurants? I don't think so. But few people seem to find it convincing.

I think there is often too much emotion involved on both sides of the issue. Heller held that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear weapons of the sort "in common use at the time" and allows the prohibition of "dangerous and unusual weapons." Of course, these two phrases leave a lot to future interpretation, but in general I agree with this approach. Some extreme gun-rights supporters would not. Similarly, gun control advocates sometimes seem to have a blind spot that prevents them from even considering the usefulness of a firearm as a tool, even when it could affect their own bottom line. The power of these tools causes some people to be too emotional in their analyses of the issues.

People smarter than me discuss Heller in depth here and here.

Your thoughts?