I fully realize that the title of this post may seem absurd to many readers. That said, I firmly believe that anyone who considers the following facts with an open mind will reach the same conclusion - even if they wish the facts allowed a different conclusion. Let's look at the facts.
Banning AR15s would be useless
The above is proved by the following facts:
1) There are at least 6 million AR15s in private hands (likely many more). In addition, there are tens of millions AK47s and other semi-auto rifles. Yet less than 2% of homicides are committed with any kind of rifle. Less than handguns, or knives, or clubs, or bare hands
 |
| According to FBI Stats, Homicides Involving Any Kind of Rifle Are Very Rare. The Number Involving AR15s Is Even Smaller |
2) They have been used on only 13 mass murders in the last 15 years - less than one per year.
3) Mass murders are usually committed with handguns. You simply do not need a rifle to kill unarmed people across the room. Banning AR15's will simply not stop mass shootings, or even slow them down. Don't believe me? Do what I did: Research what weapons were used in mass shootings.
4) At close range, the most dangerous weapon is not a rifle, it's a shotgun. The common, pump action shotgun can fire buckshot that blows fist sized holes at close range. When it spreads out at longer range, can both more easily hit a moving target and hit more than one person. For these reason both the military and police have used shotguns for close range fighting for over 150 years.
 |
| Even When Looking Just At Mass Shootings, Handguns Are By Far The Most Common Firearm Used (Source) |
Consider the Santa Fe High School shooting, the second-deadliest school shooting in the United States in 2018. The mass murderer used a pump-action Remington Model 870 shotgun and a .38-caliber revolver to kill 10 people and wound 14. He did this in spite of a very fast response by law enforcement (less than 3 minutes), including one officer who was at the school. Had he been allowed to continue killing for as long as the Stoneman Douglas High School murderer was, the death toll would have likely been as high.
 |
| The 2nd Worst Shooting In 2018 Was Committed With A Shotgun And a .38 Revolver - Not An AR15 |
Pump shotguns were also used in the Capital Gazette shooting (5 dead) and Navy Yard shooting (12 dead). At this point no one is seriously talking about banning pump shotguns - in fact even Joe Biden has come out against this.
If AR15s were banned, and not available on the illegal market (an impossibility), shooters would simply turn to handguns (constitutionally protected) and/or shotguns (also constitutionally protected). There is no difference in the death toll when these firearms are used. Banning AR15s would accomplish nothing
Banning AR15s would be unconstitutional
AR15s (and other semi-auto rifles) are clearly protected by the 2nd Amendment. To understand why this is, you need to have some understanding of the SCOTUS decisions AND firearms. Many who confidently state that they are not protected have never read the SCOTUS decisions. They are relying on small portions which - having read the whole decision more than once - I know to be pulled completely out of context. Unless SCOTUS decides to completely ignore the rules set forth in the Miller (1939), Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) decisions - as lower courts have done - these firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Let's look at the three current Supreme Court decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment right:
First, we have the Miller decision (1939). The background on this case is that in 1934, the first federal gun laws were passed. Among other things, many firearms thought to be both especially dangerous and unusual, were heavily regulated and subjected to very high taxes upon transfer. Additionally, anyone wishing to purchase such weapons were subjected to a stringent background check. In addition to machine guns and other weapons, short barreled shotguns (commonly called "sawed off") were subjected to this regulation.
Shortly after the new law took effect, a known criminal (Miller) was caught in possession of a short barreled shotgun while traveling between states. He this was charged with illegal possession and transportation. He appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which accepted the case. However, Miller died before the case was heard - but the DOJ continued the case, even though no defense was presented, at least at oral arguments.
In 1939 SCOTUS handed down its' decision. They essentially sidestepped the whole issue of personal vs. collective right by pointing out that a short barreled shotgun had no value in the context of a militia. It is important to recognize that this decision only addressed what weapons were protected - not, as mentioned, the issue of personal vs. ""collective" rights.
So, what kind of weapons did they say were protected? Simple: Weapons with military value. No military value, no 2nd Amendment protection. Clearly, this completely invalidates the argument that "weapons of war" are not protected. Just the opposite is true. In reality, all firearms types in common use have been used as weapons of war - so banning weapons of war would result in all firearms being banned. SCOTUS did not address the 2nd Amendment for another 69 years.
In 2008, the high court issued the Heller decision. Dick Heller was employed as a security guard at a government building in Washington DC. He actually carried a firearm while on duty, but was not, under D.C. law, allowed to keep a firearm at his home for personal defense. In fact, the District of Columbia banned all new handguns and forbade any firearm being kept in functional condition - they had to be kept disassembled. He sued the District in order to be able to register his handgun and keep it available for self defense.
Obviously, the case was accepted by SCOTUS and Dick Heller won. However, the decision, written by lifelong hunter and shooter, Justice Scalia, covered much more than just the matter of handguns - it sketched out a great deal of the overall 2nd Amendment right.
First, it is important to recognize that D.C. argued aggressively in favor of keeping their ban on handguns. They made the argument that handguns are used in 62% of homicides, and that therefore the ban should stay. They also argued that people didn't need
 |
| Even though handguns are clearly the most dangerous firearms SCOTUS ruled they are protected by the 2nd Amendment |
That's not all. A basic rule set forth in Heller is that the people decide what guns are protected - not the government, If the government could decide what arms are protected, the 2nd Amendment would protect nothing. People called into militia service brought such firearms as they chose to possess for lawful purposes. Therefore, any firearm commonly possessed by people for ANY lawful purpose (self defense, target shooting, hunting, collecting) is protected, period. This has since been accurately called the "common use" test.
In this excellent video from Khan Academy,
two constitutional experts explain how the
2nd Amendment has always protected a
personal right
Additionally, SCOTUS, after reviewing all data related to the passage of the 2nd Amendment, similar provisions in state constitutions passed in the same era, and rulings related to the same, concluded that the 2nd Amendment right is a personal, not collective right. This is simple common sense. Had the authors only been concerned with the ability of states to arm and organize militias, they could have simple stated that the states had the right to organize and arm militias. If they wanted to restrict the right to militia members, they could have simply limited that right to militia members. They did none of these things. Instead, the court decided, strangely enough, that when the 2nd Amendment said "the right of the people", it meant the right of the people.
Why did the founders protect the right of the people to possess arms? Consider this quote from Alexander Hamilton:
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is
Hamilton is not advocating for rebellion against the Constitution, he is saying that the last safeguard against an unconstitutional takeover of government by tyrants is an armed citizenry. Thank God, this provision has never been needed, except as a deterrent. One can argue that no one has tried to overthrow our constitutional government because of the many obstacles to such action, including a massively armed citizenry. More on this later.
In the follow on case to Heller - McDonald (2010), the City of Chicago was sued since they had exactly the same law. The issue was "incorporation" - was the right enforceable against
 |
| Otis McDonald fought for the right to legally own a handgun in Chicago |
So, let's review. In Miller, Heller, and McDonald SCOTUS decided that:
1) The 2nd Amendment right is a personal right that belongs to the people
2) In order to be protected, the weapon must have military value
3) All weapons in common use by the people are protected
4) The right restricts all levels of government - federal, state and local
5) The right is essential to our system of ordered liberty
Finally, we must address the section that gun control advocates constantly quote:
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
So, let's review what Heller says can definitely be regulated by government:
1) The carrying of concealed weapons. This DOES NOT mean that that government can ban all carrying of firearms. It does likely mean that government may ban open carry or concealed carry - but not both. In contrast to the 1800's, today most governments would prefer concealed carry over open carry because such carry causes less concern by the public. (Out of sight, out of mind). It also means that if open carry is allowed (which is the case in many states), state government can require a license for concealed carry. This is completely irrelevant to the issue of AR15s.
2) The possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill. This is current federal law, and the law in most states. Again, this is not relevant to AR15s.
3) The carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings. Since AR15s are not usually not carried in public, this doesn't apply either.
4) The commercial sale of arms. In other words, government can license dealers - again, not relevant to the issue of AR15s and other semi-auto rifles.
5) Dangerous and unusual weapons. The reference to Miller is a clear indication that what SCOTUS has in mind here are short barreled rifles and shotguns, machine guns, etc. that are controlled by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Still, SCOTUS provides a test. Government may ban or regulate weapons that are dangerous AND unusual. Please note that the wording is not "dangerous or unusual". I mention this because lower courts have actually applied Heller in this way, which is obviously wrong. All firearms are dangerous - so if courts are allowed to misapply Heller in this way, the 2nd Amendment would - once again - protect nothing. Are AR15s dangerous? Absolutely. Are they unusual? Absolutely not. In fact, they are the most popular firearm in the country. In spite of this, lower courts have ruled that the Ar15 is unusual and upheld bans on the basis that they are not common. Take a trip to any rifle range and you will discover how common they are. Unless SCOTUS reverses itself, these lower courts are simply wrong.
AR15s passes every test required for constitutional protection - therefore banning them is unconstitutional.
Banning AR15s would be dangerous
When did this opinion take root in American public opinion? Although the right of free Englishmen to own firearms was well established in the American mind almost from the beginning of English settlement, the strong association with freedom was forged on April 19th 1775 - when British troops left Boston to seize firearms from people who held the "wrong" political views.
 |
| The Revolutionary War began when British troops attempted to disarm citizens at Lexington - confiscation would likely have the same effect today |
Another major factor in play is that this association between gun rights and the preservation of freedom is much stronger in the mid-west, mountain west and south. We don't have to guess as to the danger of forced gun confiscation, because we have already had at least one close call.
In 2016, a veteran living in Northern Idaho was contacted by federal agents who said that they would be coming out the next day to collect his firearms. His crime? He had consented to have someone else manage his finances. The veteran could have just surrendered his guns, but instead, he called some friends who called the local sheriff.
 |
| Opposition to more gun laws is not limited to individuals - local government and local law enforcement are already resisting |
The next morning, the local sheriff - backed up by over 100 armed citizens - stood in front of the veteran's home. The local media, include Spokane TV stations, were also there. The sheriff made it clear that of ANYONE tried to take the man's guns, the best outcome they could expect would be to end up in his jail. Fortunately, those tasked with the seizure were made aware of the situation at the man's home and decided it wasn't worth it. They called the sheriff to tell him they were not coming. The man kept his firearms. However, it is obvious that had those agents showed up and attempted to take those guns, the potential for a firefight between local citizens/law enforcement and federal agents would have been very high.
Since then, we have seen resistance to gun laws and potential gun laws increase. More and more sheriffs are refusing to enforce new gun laws and more and more counties are declaring themselves "2nd Amendment sanctuaries". Furthermore, we have seen several states enact restrictions on semi-auto rifles like the AR15 - including registration
 |
| Most gun owners and many non-owners see confiscation of AR15s and other semi-auto rifles as just the first step towards tyranny |
So, let's consider what would happen if semi-automatic rifles like the AR15 were to be banned. After the initial "grace period" is over, just how would this law be enforced?
Well, the federal government could simply do nothing and depend upon local government to report violations they encounter in the course of their work. This would be totally ineffective because tens of millions of these rifles would remain in civilian hands. Furthermore, as with immigration, local law enforcement cannot be forced to enforce federal law. In fact, in many counties, they have refused to enforce state laws. The banned guns likely would continue to be used in a few mass shootings.
So, eventually, federal agents would eventually be tasked with figuring out who might have these firearms and going out to seize them. They likely would have a second grace period, in hopes that a few raids and arrests would result in more voluntary surrenders.
 |
| Given the division in our nation today, another civil war would be much, much worse than the first........ |
How long do you think it would take before a major firefight erupted? My guess is that it would be a matter of days. Once that happens, we all lose - because nothing good would follow. Many federal agents would likely refuse to carry out more raids. Many local law enforcement agencies would stand with their citizens against what they would view as oppression. Governors would demand a halt to raids in their state - and some would likely make it clear that this was not a request. Many would see the raids as the evidence that tyranny had actually begun, since they view the confiscation efforts as a clear violation of their rights. The only real option left to those wanting to seize these firearms would be the use of the military. In the current political environment, with America more divided than at any time since the civil war, the chances that a second civil war could be triggered would be high. Once that happens, everybody loses. There would be no winners.
As I stated earlier, an ban of AR15s would be dangerous. In fact, dangerous would likely be an understatement.
So, these are the facts. You may not like them, you may wish they were different, but this does not make these facts magically disappear. They cannot simply be ignored.
I think it is very clear that a ban of AR15s and other semi-auto rifles would be a complete disaster for America.
No comments:
Post a Comment