SEVERE WX : Wind Advisory View Alerts
STREAMING NOW: Watch Now

Banning assault rifles would be constitutional

In the wake of the ...

Posted: Mar 4, 2018 5:15 AM
Updated: Mar 4, 2018 5:15 AM

In the wake of the mass murder at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, students across the country have been extraordinarily vocal about the urgent need for common sense gun control. Their anger and frustration is not surprising. Indeed, there have already been 12 school shootings in this country this year, including the one at Central Michigan University on Friday, in which two people were killed after a gunman opened fire.

A recent CNN poll suggests that 70% of Americans generally support tougher gun laws. Perhaps people are finally tired of hearing about kids (and adults) being killed with military style assault weapons while they are in school or enjoying an outdoor concert. And now some corporations have joined the call for reasonable limits on the types of guns they sell, and to whom they sell them. In addition, several major companies have recently severed ties with the National Rifle Association.

Dick's Sporting Goods made headlines when it announced that it will immediately stop selling "assault-style rifles" and high-capacity magazines, and will not sell any firearm to someone under the age of 21. The company also issued a set of recommendations to address the problem of gun violence in this country.

The very first recommendation is to "Ban assault-style firearms." These firearms are the semi-automatic, military-style rifles that were used in several of the recent mass shootings. They are also the type of guns lawfully possessed by many people in this country for legitimate purposes like target shooting and self-protection.

Now, putting aside the difficult question of whether there is the political will to actually ban these guns, would such a ban be constitutional given the 2nd Amendment right to "keep and bear arms?"

The 2nd Amendment is not long. It 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."

That's it. There is nothing in the text of this amendment about what types of guns people can have, how long someone may have to wait before buying one, or whether certain people shouldn't be allowed to have guns at all.

It was only 10 years ago that the 2nd Amendment was interpreted to protect an individual's right to possess a firearm for personal reasons. In District of Columbia v. Heller, a narrow conservative majority of the Supreme Court held, for the first time, that the 2nd Amendment protects a person's right to own a firearm for purely personal reasons like self-defense. Before Heller, most courts considered 2nd Amendment protections to be limited to the possession of firearms in connection with the need for militia service.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller. In recognizing a personal constitutional right to possess a firearm in one's home for self-defense, he made clear that this right was not unlimited. He identified several types of restrictions that would be completely consistent with the right to keep and bear arms.

For example, Justice Scalia noted that the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit government from restricting felons or the "mentally ill" from having guns. He also acknowledged that laws designed to limit the possession of firearms in "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings" would be constitutional.

But what about laws that would ban an entire class of firearms? Can the government prevent everyone from possessing a particular type of firearm?

In the Heller case, Scalia suggested that there would be no constitutional problem with banning the possession of "dangerous and unusual" firearms. According to the Supreme Court's opinion in Heller, the 2nd Amendment only guarantees the right of a person to possess guns that are commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

Of course, virtually none of the firearms sold today were available in 1789, and there were certainly no semi-automatic assault rifles like the one used in Parkland.

But the question is not whether such weapons were in common use two centuries ago, but whether they are commonly used by law-abiding people for lawful purposes today.

The NRA estimates that there are between 8.5 million and 15 million assault rifles owned by people living in the United States.

That number suggests that assault rifles are quite common. But that doesn't mean a government can't ban them. In fact, some cities and states already have. And while those laws have been challenged, none have been reversed by the Supreme Court.

Since Heller, the Supreme Court has rejected a number of cases challenging various restrictions on firearms. One dealt directly with a city's decision to prohibit someone from owning a semi-automatic rifle. Despite the clear constitutional issue presented by that case, the court passed on it.

Although that doesn't mean that the court would necessarily uphold the restriction, it does suggest that there were not enough votes to overturn the lower court's decision that upheld the law.

There is enough room under the 2nd Amendment to prevent people from possessing certain types of firearms. Even Justice Scalia recognized that laws restricting the possession of certain guns -- machine guns and short-barreled shotguns, for example -- would be constitutionally permissible. And Justice Scalia acknowledged that "weapons most useful in military service" may not be protected. Assault-style rifles may certainly fall into that category.

While banning semi-automatic assault rifles won't end all gun violence, it may save a few lives without significantly interfering with the rights of gun owners to use other firearms for recreation and self-protection. And that's something we can all live with.

Oregon Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Cases: 74119

Reported Deaths: 905
CountyCasesDeaths
Multnomah17242236
Washington10347101
Marion9207140
Clackamas616077
Umatilla434349
Lane430942
Jackson382531
Malheur240644
Deschutes236815
Yamhill172916
Linn142423
Polk125016
Douglas93018
Klamath8724
Jefferson83411
Benton7917
Union7826
Morrow6587
Lincoln62215
Josephine5374
Wasco53019
Columbia5063
Coos4253
Hood River4011
Clatsop3600
Baker2813
Crook2296
Curry1352
Grant1341
Lake1321
Tillamook1310
Harney991
Wallowa713
Gilliam230
Sherman230
Wheeler30
Unassigned00

California Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Cases: 1215455

Reported Deaths: 19151
CountyCasesDeaths
Los Angeles3958437639
San Bernardino930191129
Riverside868541437
San Diego81084997
Orange778191577
Kern41328448
Fresno38288481
Sacramento36905576
Santa Clara34292476
Alameda29476512
San Joaquin25742502
Contra Costa23895261
Stanislaus21714424
Tulare20701308
Ventura19510175
Imperial16019356
San Francisco15450160
Monterey15328121
San Mateo14148170
Sonoma12198157
Merced11688179
Santa Barbara11481135
Kings1109387
Solano1025281
Marin7755129
Placer649768
San Luis Obispo612936
Madera611985
Shasta488247
Yolo482776
Santa Cruz442628
Butte389459
Sutter333216
Napa303317
El Dorado24154
Yuba203610
San Benito188016
Lassen17733
Tehama167825
Mendocino145823
Nevada12729
Tuolumne9818
Glenn9258
Lake92019
Humboldt8509
Colusa7116
Siskiyou6242
Amador56316
Mono5483
Calaveras47822
Del Norte3281
Inyo29016
Plumas2150
Trinity1580
Mariposa1312
Modoc1310
Alpine500
Sierra190
Unassigned00
Medford
Overcast
32° wxIcon
Hi: 43° Lo: 29°
Feels Like: 27°
Brookings
Overcast
45° wxIcon
Hi: 52° Lo: 41°
Feels Like: 42°
Crater Lake
Clear
18° wxIcon
Hi: 40° Lo: 21°
Feels Like: 18°
Grants Pass
Overcast
34° wxIcon
Hi: 45° Lo: 31°
Feels Like: 34°
Klamath Falls
Clear
18° wxIcon
Hi: 43° Lo: 19°
Feels Like: 18°
Few showers on Monday
KDRV Radar
KDRV Fire Danger
KDRV Weather Cam

Community Events