NRA Home NRA Media
Join, Renew, Contribute

The AR-15 And The Second Amendment: No Respect


by Dave Kopel

It’s the best-selling type of rifle in America today, yet the gun prohibition lobbies want to make it a crime for you to own one.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller seems to outlaw such bans on AR-15s. Yet some courts are still upholding prohibition of this rifle.

Whether you will have the choice five or 10 years from now to buy an AR-15 is far from certain—and whether you will be able to keep the AR-15 you may already own is uncertain as well.

Historically Speaking
The development of the rifle known today as the AR-15 started in 1956. The strategy to ban it was unveiled in 1988.

At that time, Josh Sugarmann, former communications director of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, pointed out in a strategy paper that the media had grown tired of the handgun issue, but  “assault weapons” would be novel to them.

Further, he added in the memo, “The semi-automatic weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons” (“Assault Weapons and Accessories in America,” Education Fund to End Handgun Violence and New Right Watch, Sept. 1988).

Sugarmann was exactly right. The gun prohibition groups successfully created and then exploited public confusion. In 1989, California was the first state to ban so-called “assault rifles” or “assault weapons.” The gun-banners did not use the term “assault rifle” in the proper technical sense—that is, an intermediate power combat rifle that has a selector switch so that the gun can fire either automatically or semi-automatically. Instead, the prohibitionists tricked legislatures into banning guns that could only fire as semi-autos, but which looked like selective-fire military rifles.

Fast Forward
Over the next several years, bans on the AR-15 and many other semi-auto rifles were enacted in New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut and the District of Columbia. The signature “achievement” of Bill Clinton’s first term as president was a national ban in 1994, prohibiting the manufacture of these firearms with their usual features such as adjustable stocks and flash suppressors.

The Clinton ban had a “sunset clause,” so it expired in 2004. As firearm manufacturers resumed production of these guns in their original form, the gun prohibition groups predicted mass carnage. Of course, the predictions never came true. The AR-15 and similar guns had rarely been used in crime before the ban, and criminal misuse remained rare after 2004.

The AR-15 has become very popular with law-abiding citizens. By 2007, even The New York Times wrote that the AR-15 and similar guns were often “the guns of choice for many hunters, target shooters and would-be home defenders” (Andrew Park, “A Hot-Selling Weapon, an Inviting Target,” June 3, 2007). In response to consumer demand, nearly a half million AR-15-type rifles were manufactured in the United States in 2009. These days, you can even buy one at Wal-Mart, which is a pretty good sign that these are popular, mass-market products.

While the prohibition groups hysterically clamor about “assault weapons,” more and more people are buying AR-15s, just as they’ve bought other rifles descended from military arms throughout history. There is a very long tradition in which the civilian versions of service rifles have become standard firearms for hunting, target shooting and lawful self-defense. The Spencer repeating rifles and 1903 Springfield bolt-action followed this path and so did the M1 Garand after World War II. This isn’t unique to America; the military 1898 Mauser quickly became one of the most popular actions for hunting rifles in the world. Today, the AR-15 continues that venerable tradition.

Yet New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the gun-ban lobbies and the multitudinous groups funded by George Soros have kept the AR-15 illegal in some jurisdictions, and they continue to push for a national ban. President Obama ran on a platform in 2008 calling for a national ban, and as a U.S. senator and an Illinois state senator he voted to outlaw the AR-15 and many other guns.

The prohibitionists have convinced tens of millions of people that the AR-15 is some sort of ultra-powerful firearm that is meant to be spray-fired from the hip, for rapidly slaughtering people.

In truth, the AR-15 is at the low end of power among rifles. And when you pull the trigger, it only fires one round.

Yet owning an AR-15 is a serious crime in California, where one of every nine Americans resides. Additionally, north of Pennsylvania, the large majority of Americans live in states where to own an AR-15 is to be guilty of a crime comparable to a violent felony. Disgracefully, the AR-15 is also outlawed in our nation’s capital—a city where constitutional rights ought to be especially secure.

The Heller Decision
What did the landmark Heller decision have to say about banning guns like the AR-15? Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court says that the Second Amendment “does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” The Heller decision interpreted a 1939 Supreme Court case, United States v. Miller, as standing for the principle that the Second Amendment has historically protected guns “in common use at the time,” rather than “dangerous and unusual weapons.” While some scholars have disagreed with the court’s reasoning, the court went on to suggest that bans on short shotguns, short rifles and machine guns are not unconstitutional because those guns are not among the type of “arms” protected by the Second Amendment right.

Almost immediately after Heller was decided, the Brady Campaign began insisting that bans on the AR-15 and all other so-called “assault weapons” were allowed, because these guns were “dangerous” and “unusual.” That’s a major misreading of the Heller decision, but essentially the same propaganda that anti-gun groups have been pushing since the 1980s.

In fact, the guns are not more “dangerous” than other standard firearms. They do not fire faster, nor do they fire more powerful ammunition. And they are certainly not “unusual.” Today, the AR-15 is the best-selling firearm in the United States. Instead, widespread experience demonstrates the AR-15 is “in common use” and is “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” There are more than 3 million of them in the hands of law-abiding American citizens.

In 2009, the California Court of Appeal (the court between the state trial courts and the state Supreme Court) upheld the state’s “assault weapon” ban. People v. James involved a criminal defendant who continued to possess firearms in violation of a restraining order. Michael James was prosecuted not only for violation of the restraining order, but also for possessing guns that even law-abiding Californians can legally possess, including a Bushmaster XM-15 (a variant of the AR-15).

The three-judge panel ruled that the Bushmaster is entitled to no protection under the Second Amendment. To uphold the ban, the court relied almost entirely on the legislative “findings” that had been part of the enactment of the California ban by a panicked state legislature.

According to the 1989 California legislature, the AR-15 “has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings.” The legislature also claimed that it had no intent “to place restrictions on the use of those weapons which are primarily designed and intended for hunting, target practice or other legitimate sports or recreational activities.”

The legislative findings about rate of fire and danger are palpably false. Moreover, the legislative findings are a tacit admission that the legislature entirely disregarded whether the AR-15 was suitable for self-defense, because the legislature did not include self-defense among the “legitimate” uses of firearms. Opposition to self-defense is the longstanding position of the gun prohibitionist groups. The Heller decision, however, declares that self-defense is the “core” of the Second Amendment. The James court either overlooked or ignored the legislature’s illegitimate, unconstitutional desire for people to have only “recreational” guns and not self-defense guns.

The James court therefore wrongly concluded that the AR-15 and similar firearms “are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

For understandable reasons, courts tend to be hostile to Second Amendment claims when they are raised by criminals, such as James. The possibility of victory is greater when a carefully framed case is brought by the National Rifle Association on behalf of law-abiding citizens.

Pages: 1 2