"In the meantime, politicians and pundits will continue to call for “major gun reform” without addressing the constitutional limits on such action."
 |
| Broc Smith |
"Within minutes of the shooting at a Minneapolis Catholic Church Mass on Wednesday, politicians and pundits were calling for new gun control measures and blaming conservatives for the deaths of the children. These are the same calls that have emerged after past shootings for everything from a ban on “assault weapons” to a total ban on all guns. What the public is not being told is the limited range of options under existing constitutional precedent.
"The inconvenient fact in these interviews was that Minnesota has some of the nation’s strictest gun controls, and these weapons were acquired legally in that state by the shooter. The state has “red flag” laws and other provisions, but this was someone who did not raise “red flags” or other barriers. The state is at or near the maximal level of gun controls permitted under the Constitution. What remains are bans that would trigger greater serious constitutional challenges.
"After calling for more limits, Sen. Tina Smith (D., Minn.) admitted to CNN that the guns were legally obtained in her state, but insisted that “there are only so many things that an individual state can do, because guns pour into Minneapolis and Minnesota from all other parts of the country.”
"Over at MSNBC, pundits were suggesting that it may be time for an Australian-like ban and seizure of all guns. The Trace reporter Mike Spies told MSNBC’s Katy Tur that “[guns are] too powerful, even handguns too, again, that’s why in Australia … The only thing that really works, if you really wanted to bring down gun violence, was to do what Australia did and to do what many other countries in Europe do.”
"The problem, of course, is that this is not Australia, and we have a Second Amendment protection of gun ownership with over 490 million guns in private hands back in 2022. In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms. The Supreme Court further strengthened the right in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.
"Politicians know that, but continue to call for measures that would be presumptively unconstitutional. Any Australian ban would require a constitutional amendment, absent the most extreme interpretation of the Second Amendment to flip its meaning.
"As I have previously written, these calls often appear entirely disconnected from the actual crime or the constitutional protections afforded gun owners, including President Biden demanding a ban on assault weapons after a shooting with a handgun. Biden and others often collectively call these guns “assault weapons,” a standard reference to such popular models as the AR-15.
"The AR-15 is the most popular gun in America and the number of these guns in private hands is continuing to rise rapidly, with one AR-15 purchased in every five new firearms sales. These AR-15s clearly are not being purchased for armored deer. Many are purchased for personal and home protection; it is also popular for target shooting and hunting. Many gun owners like the AR-15 because it is modular; depending on the model, you can swap out barrels, bolts and high-capacity magazines, or add a variety of accessories. While it does more damage than a typical handgun, it is not the most powerful gun sold in terms of caliber; many guns have equal or greater caliber.
"That is why laws to ban or curtail the sale of the AR-15 would likely run into constitutional barriers. Even the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down a California ban on adults under 21 purchasing semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15." . . .
