The District's Gun Ban Goes to Court

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in District of Columbia v. Heller. The justices are expected to rule on whether the Second Amendment allows an individual right to bear arms or reserves that right to militias. Below are excerpts from some of the dozens of briefs filed on both sides.

In 1976, the Council of the District of Columbia concluded that existing laws did not adequately curb gun-related violence. As a consequence, it enacted a comprehensive new law regulating firearms. The principal provision at issue here prohibits most residents from registering (and thus possessing) any pistol not registered before the law became effective. . . . The Council targeted handguns because they . . . were used in 88% of armed robberies and 91% of armed assaults. In 1974, handguns were used to commit 155 of 285 murders in the District. In the same year, every rapist in the District who used a firearm to facilitate his crime used a handgun.

The Council . . . found that guns 'are more frequently involved in deaths and violence among relatives and friends than in premeditated criminal activities,' and that many 'murders are committed by previously law-abiding citizens, in situations where spontaneous violence is generated by anger, passion, or intoxication.' The Council also focused on the link between handguns and accidental deaths and injuries, particularly to young children who can wield only smaller weapons: of the '[c]lose to 3,000 accidental deaths . . . caused by firearms' annually, children were particularly vulnerable -- ' 1/4 of the victims are under 14 years of age.' . . . The legislature concluded that 'the ultimate resolution of the problems of gun created crimes and gun created accidents . . . is the elimination of the availability of handguns.' The Council thus chose to 'freez[e] the pistol . . . population within the District of Columbia.' As the Council summed up, 'the bill reflects a legislative decision' that handguns 'have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia.'

-- from the brief of the District of Columbia

--

As the court of appeals correctly held, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations. But like other constitutional rights, that individual right is subject to reasonable restrictions, must be applied in light of context and history, and does not provide any protections to individuals who have never been understood to be within the Amendment's protections. The D.C. laws at issue here ban a commonly-used and commonly-possessed firearm. The ban is not unconstitutional just because it takes a categorical approach, but it is subject to heightened judicial scrutiny.

This Court should affirm the court of appeals' threshold determination that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, but it should adopt a more flexible standard of review.

-- from the brief for the United States

--

Even pro-gun advocates recognize that handguns are not well-suited for self-defense. Firearms expert Chris Bird has explained that a handgun 'is the least effective firearm for self defense' and in almost all situations 'shotguns and rifles are much more effective in stopping a [criminal].' . . . [and] '[a] handgun is the hardest firearm to shoot accurately.' Because of their smaller size and shape, which allows them to be concealed and carried easily, handguns -- compared with larger shotguns and rifles that are designed to be held with two hands -- require a greater degree of dexterity.

The difficulty of shooting a handgun accurately is substantially compounded when an individual is faced with a life-threatening situation. Even a well-trained shooter will experience dramatic physiological effects in response to mortal danger. Commonly known as the 'fight-or-flight reflex,' and accompanied by an enormous surge in adrenaline . . . the resulting effects include the loss of fine motor skills, tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, trembling, and loss of control of bodily functions. . . . The effect of these unavoidable physiological changes is profound. A handgun owner faced with the 'fight-or-flight reflex' is less likely to be able to manipulate his handgun effectively for self-defense, but he also is more likely to endanger himself, his family, and other innocent bystanders.

-- from the brief by the Violence Policy Center and the police chiefs of Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Seattle

--