The Right to Bear Arms and "Sensible" Gun Laws

By David Kopel
Reaction Essay

[snip]

...Regarding gun storage laws, Heller struck down an ordinance that made it impossible for citizens to use a gun in the home for lawful self-defense. What about laws that merely make such usage extremely difficult? Oral argument may be instructive:

Justice Scalia: What would that [a self-defense exception to the D.C. ordinance required guns in the home be locked and disassembled at all times] — that you can, if you have time, when you hear somebody crawling in your — your bedroom window, you can run to your gun, unlock it, load it and then fire? Is that going to be the exception?

Solicitor General Clement: If that’s going to be the exception, it could clearly be inadequate….

During Walter Dellinger’s rebuttal argument for the District, Chief Justice Roberts provoked laughter from his colleagues by questioning the idea of unlocking a gun when a home invasion is in progress: “So then you turn on the lamp, you pick up your reading glasses…”

[snip]



------------------

To read the full, which is recommended: David Kopel's Reaction Essay

Written as a response to: The Lead Essay by Robert Levy and Reaction Essay by Dennis Henigan

---------------

This is a beautifully written essay by David Kopel. It is a response to both the lead essay by Levy, which is excellent, and a reaction essay by Henigan (Henigan is part of the "other" side, BTW). The CATO institute, if you are unaware, played a vital role in Heller.

Who these men are:
David Kopel
Robert Levy
Dennis Henigan

Yeah, the District is telling SCOTUS to go and fuck itself with their continued insistence on people keeping their guns disabled. They may be doing the same thing with their bullshit definition of a Machine Gun (and I certainly hope the courts rule that they are).

This is definitely turning into a push vs. shove situation and the ball is back in the legal system's court...so to speak. I hope they kick someone's ass over this.

What kind of fools would challenge the Supreme Court?

Originally from Essay <snip> What gun laws are “sensible” under Heller? We know that bans on “dangerous and unusual weapons,” that is, “weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns” are valid. We know that “prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose” of “the inherent right of self-defense” is not. Henigan is very likely right that the 1986 federal ban on new machine guns for people who are not government employees would be upheld by the current Court. <snip> The most commonly sold rifles in the United States today are self-loading AR-15 variants, made by a wide variety of companies. These guns are not machine guns, but they are black, and they do look like machine guns.

I am really curious as how this is going to play out. With the only difference between a M16/M4 and our ARs being a couple parts.

Quoted: What kind of fools would challenge the Supreme Court?

when you see your enemy making a mistake..   its best not to interrupt them

Quoted: Originally from Essay <snip> What gun laws are “sensible” under Heller? We know that bans on “dangerous and unusual weapons,” that is, “weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns” are valid. We know that “prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose” of “the inherent right of self-defense” is not. Henigan is very likely right that the 1986 federal ban on new machine guns for people who are not government employees would be upheld by the current Court. <snip> The most commonly sold rifles in the United States today are self-loading AR-15 variants, made by a wide variety of companies. These guns are not machine guns, but they are black, and they do look like machine guns. I am really curious as how this is going to play out. With the only difference between a M16/M4 and our ARs being a couple parts.

With the increasing number of police departments issuing machine guns, I thik it can be argued that whatever equipment is suitable for a civilian police officer for personal defense is also suitable for civilians who are not government employees.

IOW, if officer friendly has an M4 in the trunk, then he must have a good reason. Similarly, any reason a LE agency can cite for issuing machineguns to their officers is a pretty compellng argument for their utility as personal defense tools for everyone else.

Finally, if DC's cops carry "machineguns" on their duty belts (by DC's own definition) it can be argued that machineguns are the standard (not special) issue defensive weapon of the DC police force, and therefore machineguns are the most effective, ideal means for ANYONE to defend themself. (At least in DC where a machinegun is any semi-auto with a removeable magazine.)

Sadly, I think new machineguns for US citizens will never happen. Maybe the NRA was right to try to discourage the Parker case from going forward. The SCOTUS composition could have been a lot more favorable, one need only look at the 5-4 decision (that affirmed Miller and threw NFA under the bus) to understand.

Yeah, every peace officer and security guard carries a machine gun on duty.