Do ‘Assault-Style’ Weapons Have Legitimate Use in Self-Defense?
The debate over the legality and utility of assault-style weapons, particularly in the context of self-defense, has become increasingly contentious in recent years. Judge Stephen McGlynn's stance, wherein he questions the legality and common use of such weapons for defensive purposes, brings to light important considerations surrounding the Second Amendment rights and the rationale behind banning certain firearms.
Legal Status and Regulation of Fully Automatic Assult Weapons
It is important to clarify that fully automatic assault weapons are illegal for civilian ownership without strict and extensive regulation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), as outlined in the federal laws of the United States. This stringent regulation is in place to prevent these weapons from falling into the wrong hands and to ensure public safety.
Interpretation of Common Use and Constitutional Rights
Moving beyond specific legal definitions, the argument revolves around whether these weapons are commonly used for legitimate purposes such as self-defense. Some argue that if a weapon is not in widespread use for defensive purposes, it should be banned. This argument is flawed for several reasons. Firstly, the definition of what constitutes 'common use' is arbitrary and subjective. Secondly, it presumes that technological advancement should be stifled, which is counterproductive to progress.
In the words of Judge McGlynn, this approach is 'circular' and ultimately harmful. Moreover, it is a slippery slope. Every technological advance that surpasses the status quo is initially uncommon. Banning these new technologies based on their rarity would hinder innovation and societal progress.
Practical Considerations and Legal Context
According to historical court decisions, such as Heller vs. District of Columbia (2008), the Second Amendment protects weapons that are 'in common use' at the time. This means that the choice of weapons resides with the people, not the government. In Heller, it was also established that 'Public Safety' is not a valid reason to infringe on the Second Amendment.
The AR-15 clone, a popular 'assault-style' weapon, exemplifies the modern firearm that is 'in common use'. It is the single most-common style of rifle in America, with more Americans owning an AR than owning a dog. For those willing to invest some time in training, the AR-15 (chambered in 5.56x45mm) is often recommended for home defense, where proper training on corrective actions and risk mitigation is essential.
Moreover, the prevalence of these weapons suggests their utility in various contexts, including self-defense. Arguments that assail these weapons for their association with violent crimes, such as drive-by shootings, are not a basis for a blanket ban. Instead, focusing on specific legislation to address the misuse of firearms in these scenarios would be more appropriate.
Misconceptions and Beyond the Label
Labeling any firearm as an 'assault-style weapon' is often a tactic used to evoke emotional responses and stoke fears. However, such terms are propagandist in nature and misleading. In reality, 'assault-style' weapons, including the AR-15, have never been utilized in military 'raids' or 'assaults' but are more accurately described as civilian defensive tools.
There are more effective ways to address public safety concerns, such as targeting specific demographics or behaviors that are more closely correlated with violent crimes. For instance, banning guns for those within a certain age demographic (e.g., 14-29) might significantly reduce crime rates. However, such measures need to be practical, data-driven, and balanced.
Understanding the complexities of the Second Amendment and the practical considerations of weapon regulations is crucial. By focusing on evidence-based policies and ensuring that any restrictions do not infringe upon constitutionally protected rights, we can work towards a safer and more just society.