assault weapons bans are an assault on the second amendment

7/29/2019 Assault Weapons Bans are an ASSAULT on the Second Amendment

1/22

Assault Weapons Bans are an ASSAULT on the Second Amendment

By Nicolas Pleshe

Table of Contents

Intro.............................................................................................................................................................. 2

The Ordinance............................................................................................................................................. 4

Facts and Procedural Posture...................................................................................................................... 5

Background of the Second Amendment...................................................................................................... 6

Analysis......................................................................................................................................................... 8

I. It is incorrect to apply a heightened standard of scrutiny such as strict or intermediate to SecondAmendment laws; instead gun laws should be reviewed using text, history, and tradition

analysis

II. Modern Sporting Rifles (MSR) are of common use among law abiding citizens for lawfulpurposes.

III. Modern Sporting Rifles (MSR) are not dangerous and Unusual Weapons.Conclusion................................................................................................................................................. 15

Appendix A: Rifles Made by the Top MSR Manufactures.............................................................. 20

Appendix B: Rifles Exported by the Top MSR Manufacturers....................................................... 21

Appendix C: Murder Victims by Weapon from 2006 - 2010........................................................... 22


2/22

2 | P a g e

Intro

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.1 The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution

was ratified in 1791, but what is surprising is that it was over two centuries before the U.S. Supreme

Court had its first in depth analysis of the scope of the Second Amendment. Assault weapons bans are

nothing new; however, there has been very little case law challenging these bans for being in violation of

the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms.

The term assault weapon is a misunderstood term that is derived from the term assault rifle

used by the military to reference fully-automatic rifles.2Assault weapons is a political term created by

politicians and the anti-gun lobby to make a certain class of firearms sound worse than they really are.

The type of firearms that are classified as assault weapons are semi-automatic arms that have specific

accessories attached to the weapon that were first invented for military application used on most fully-

automatic arms.3 The argument commonly used by legislatures to support assault weapons bans are to

protect the public from firearms that have certain military characteristics that allow someone to discharge

a large number of rounds in a spray fire fashion while maintaining control of the weapon. 4 The AR-15

is the most popular model of firearms classified as assault weapons that is employed for civilian use.5

It

looks like an M16/M4 rifle which is the standard service weapon used by our military, but it does not

function in the same way.6 The M16/M4 is a select fire rifle that can fire on semi-automatic or three round

burst while an AR-15 is strictly semi-automatic.7

Because of the misinformation about assault weapons, the operation of different types of

firearms should be compared with that of semi-automatic weapons. A revolver, pump action, or bolt

action firearm must be cycled manually by the user for the weapon to chamber a round and fire; for

example, a bolt action rifles bolt must be cocked back by the operatoreach time to chamber a round

ready to fire and subsequently squeeze the trigger to fire.8 A semi-automatic firearm can take many forms

such as a handgun, rifle, or shotgun. A semi-automatic firearm is a weapon which completes all the tasks

necessary for it to fire when the trigger is pulled, which is different from firearms such as revolvers, pump


3/22

3 | P a g e

action, or bolt action which must be cycled manually.9

One squeeze of the trigger from a semi-automatic

firearm will only fire one round and chamber another round to be ready to fire.10 No matter how long you

hold the trigger down it will not fire another round unlike fully-automatic firearms that can fire numerous

rounds as long as the trigger is held down and will only stop firing if the trigger is released or all the

ammunition in the magazine or belt is exhausted. For a semi-automatic firearm to be able to fire another

shot, you would have to release your finger off the trigger and squeeze the trigger a second time.

Contrary to the information put out to the public, assault weapons cannot spray fire and shoot

rounds more quickly than any other semi-automatic firearms that are not considered assault weapons.

Constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh explains the definition of assault weapons concentrates on the

features and accessories (pistol grips, folding stocks, etc) associated with the firearm that has little to do

with the dangerousness of the weapon.11The term assault weapon is not the correct term to classify

these weapons because the term originated from the military in reference to fully-automatic rifles.12

The

National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) calls these weapons modern sporting rifles (MSR) which I

believe is a more appropriate term because of their versatility and growing popularity for shooting

competitions, hunting, and self-defense.13

Since the term assault weapon is inappropriate, I will call

these weapons MSRs for the remainder of this article.

In 1994, Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Actwhich included

the prohibition of MSRs from civilian use.14 Additionally, the law banned specific models of firearms by

name for civilian use such as the AR-15. The ban expired in 2004. Since the expiration of the ban, some

states have enacted their own assault weapons bans.15

Once the federal assault weapons ban expired, Cook County amended its 1993 version of an

assault weapons ban in 2006 to close the gaps left by the expiration of the federal ban.16

The ordinance

added a characteristics based test much like the one imposed in the expired federal ban.17 The ordinance

also includes a list of various prohibited models and duplicates of certain firearms.18 The ordinance

was challenged in Wilson v. County of Cookby three gun owners who were seeking to block the ban.19


4/22

4 | P a g e

The legal question is whether MSRs are firearms that are protected by the Second Amendment.

To determine if MSRs are protected an analysis must be done to assess the level of dangerousness and

unusualness of these weapons in conjunction with determining if these weapons are in common use by

law abiding citizens for lawful purposes.20 Additionally, since the Supreme Court did not explicitly

articulate a standard to evaluate Second Amendment challenges; the Court needs to adopt a standard for

the subordinate courts to follow when evaluating gun restrictions.

Wilson v. County of Cookis important because it will expand what types of weapons are

protected under the Second Amendment and can clear up some of the Second Amendment questions left

from the landmark decisions inDistrict of Columbia v. HellerandMcDonald v. City of Chicago.21

The

Illinois Supreme Court made the correct decision in Wilson to send the case back to the trial court for

further review on the Second Amendment question because the Cook Countys Assault Weapons Ban

should be struck down based on the historical analysis that MSRs are of common use by the public and

are not dangerous and unusual weapons.

The Ordinance

The ordinance defined assault weapons as any semi-automatic firearm (handgun, rifle, or

shotgun) that had the capabilities to accept a high capacity magazine (detachable or fixed) and has one or

more of the following characteristics; a pistol grip without a stock attached,, a folding stock, a collapsible

stock, a barrel shroud, a protruding grip that is able to be held by the non-firing hand, a muzzle brake or a

muzzle compensator.22

Furthermore, the ordinance defines a high capacity magazine as a magazine that

can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.23 The ordinance also bans semi-automatic shotguns with

the capabilities of accepting a detachable magazine or has a fixed magazine of more than 5 rounds and a

semi-automatic pistol that has a detachable magazine outside the pistol grip.24


5/22

5 | P a g e

Facts & Procedural Posture

The plaintiffs filed an action seeking to block the assault weapons ban enacted by the county. The

plaintiffs alleged that the ordinance violated the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution because the

definition of assault weapon is unconstitutionally vague.25 Additionally, plaintiffs contended that the

ordnance infringes on their Second Amendment rights to bear arms and that the ordinance violated the

equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution because the ordinance arbitrarily classifies certain

firearms.26 The county filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted. The trial court found that 1) the

ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague; 2) the Ordinance did not violate the Second Amendment

because it allowed infringement only by the federal government and it had never been incorporated to the

states through the Fourteenth Amendment; and 3) plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action for a violation

of the equal protection clause.27 The appellate court affirmed the trial courts decision followingDistrict

of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states and was subject

to police power. The appellate court also found that the trial court correctly denied the plaintiffs

vagueness and equal protection challenges.28

The plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court which denied the petition and

directed the appellate court to reconsider its decision based on a recent U.S. Supreme Courts decision in

McDonald v. City of Chicago which held for the first time that the Second Amendment applies to the

states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.29 The appellate court again affirmed

the trial courts decision holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to assault weapons

because the ordinance is substantially related to an important governmental interest.30 Additionally,

the appellate court reaffirmed that the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague and dismissed the equal

protection challenge.31

The Illinois Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs appeal and affirmed the due

process and equal protection challenges, but reversed the Second Amendment challenge and directed the

case back to the trial court to decide the Second Amendment question.32


6/22

6 | P a g e

Background on the Second Amendment

One of the very first cases to shape the Second Amendment came more than a century ago in U.S.

v. Cruikshank.33

In this case, the Court held that the Second Amendment was meant not to be infringed by

the federal government.34 However, it was subject to police powers of the state.35 This meant that the

states and other municipalities had the right through legislative action to restrict gun ownership within

their jurisdictions. Sixty-nine years later; the U.S. Supreme Court granted the appeal in U.S. v. Miller. In

this case a man was arrested for unlawfully transporting a sawed off shotgun with a barrel of less than 18

inches.36

The Court held that such a weapon was not protected by the Second Amendment because it did

not contribute to the common defense or seem to be any type of ordinary military equipment.37 The

Court would later define this standard as weapons that are dangerous and unusual. 38

The first in depth review of the Second Amendment came inDistrict of Columbia v. Hellerin

2008.39

In this case the District of Columbia handgun ban was challenged as being in violation of the

Second Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the right to bear arms was an individual right.40

Furthermore, the Court recognized that the right to self defense was the central component of the

Second Amendment; but the Court did recognize sporting activities such as hunting to be a lawful use of

the right to bear arms.41

The dissent inHellercontended that the right to bear arms has always been a

collective right reserved by the states for militia service.42

Justice Scalia, who wrote for the majority,

rejected this notion by looking into the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment and the past

precedent of the Court.43 The Court struck down the handgun ban because it was a prohibition on an

entire class of firearms that have been overwhelmingly chosen by the American public for the lawful

purpose of self-defense in the home.44 The Court also noted that this law would be held unconstitutional

under any of the standards of scrutiny.45

This case was the most significant case on the Second

Amendment because for the first time the Court recognized an individuals right to bear arms in self

defense within the home. Furthermore, this case gives some guidance to subordinate courts on a variety of

Second Amendment issues.


7/22

7 | P a g e

After the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban inHeller,McDonald v. City of Chicago

was filed to invalidate Chicagos handgun ban.46 The case made its way all the way up to the U.S.

Supreme Court where the Court changed course from its decision in Cruikshankby holding that the

Second Amendment applies to the states by incorporation through the due process clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment.47 Additionally, the Court reiterated its holding inHellerand subsequently struck

down Chicagos handgun ban.48 This case was important because it extended the Second Amendment to

apply to the states, which will allow for more challenges to laws restricting the right to bear arms.

WhileHellerandMcDonaldwere huge wins for Second Amendment rights, the Court made sure

to emphasize that like all rights this right is not absolute.49

The Court noted that the Second Amendment

is not a right that allows the right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever

and for whatever purpose.50 There have been restrictions placed on the class of people that were allowed

to carry firearms; for example, the possession of firearms is prohibited by felons and the mentally ill.51

Additionally, there have been restrictions for carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools.52 The

Supreme Court inHelleralso recognized another limitation on the Second Amendment derived from

Miller, which is the prohibition from carrying dangerous and unusual weapons.53 However, the Court

did not provide a standard test to determine which firearms would fall into this category.

SinceHellerandMcDonald, many federal circuit courts have adopted a two prong test when

determining the constitutionality of a gun law.54(1) The court looks to whether a provision infringes on a

right protected by the Second Amendment and (2) ifit does then the court decides if the provision

passes muster under the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny.55 However, the Court inHellerand

McDonalddid not define a standard of scrutiny that should be applied to firearm bans. Most courts have

applied a heightened level of scrutiny such as intermediate when evaluating firearm laws.56

Other courts that have addressed the issue of assault weapons have taken various approaches in

reaching their conclusions. In People v. James, a California Court of Appeals held that a specific firearm

is not protected by the Second Amendment.57

The court noted that through legislative findings it was

determined that because assault weapons have "such a [rapid] rate of fire and capacity for firepower that


8/22

8 | P a g e

their function as a legitimate sports or recreation firearm [for law abiding citizens] is far outweighed [by]

the danger that they can be used to kill or injure human beings.58 Furthermore, the court concluded that

the rifle at issue (.50 Cal BMG) has the capability to destroy and seriously damage essential public and

private infrastructures.59 It concluded that these weapons were not typically possessed by law abiding

citizens and is weapons of war.60

In response to the decision inHeller, The District of Columbia passed a new weapons law that

banned the majority of semi-automatic rifles that they considered assault weapons. The law was

challenged inHeller v District of Columbia (Heller II).61

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the

ban on assault weapons and determined that it could not be sure if assault weapons such as the AR-15 or

high capacity magazines are of common use; however, the court noted that it need not resolve this issue,

but instead applied intermediate scrutiny and the ban would survive this standard.62 The dissenting judge

interpretedHellerandMcDonaldas rejecting the traditional standards of scrutiny that are used in

constitutional law and instead used a text, history, and tradition approach to determine which arms are

protected.63

Analysis

I. It is incorrect to apply a heightened standard of scrutiny such as strict or intermediate toSecond Amendment laws; instead gun laws should be reviewed using text, history, and

tradition analysis.

Most courts have interpretedHellerandMcDonaldthat the Court rejected a rational basis test and

some form of heightened scrutiny such as strict or intermediate scrutiny should apply to gun

restrictions.64

These standards of scrutiny weigh an individuals right against the states interest. A

fundamental right such as free speech gets strict scrutiny test where the state must show a compelling

interest to infringe on the right; under rational relationship the right is not fundamental, therefore any

legitimate reason for government action is sufficient to defeat the right.65

Many courts have applied


9/22

9 | P a g e

some form of intermediate scrutiny when reviewing gun laws.66

Therefore, the government only has

to show that it has a significant interest in regulating assault weapons which is much higher than a

legitimate interest in rational basis test67 The courts which have applied this standard of scrutiny

have misinterpretedHellerandMcDonald. The controlling opinions inHellerandMcDonaldindicate

that gun laws should be examined based on text, history, and tradition.

The dissenting opinion inHeller IIinterprets that the Supreme Court rejected the traditional

standards of scrutiny approach relating to gun laws, but instead based their analysis on the text,

history, and tradition.68

Upon readingHellerandMcDonald, it is clear that the Court applied this

type of approach in evaluating the prohibition on handguns. The Court never applied a level of

scrutiny or even asked the question if the handgun ban served any important government interest.69

Instead the Court decided that handguns have not been traditionally banned and was of common

use by society.70

It is apparent that not only did the Court use a text, history, and tradition analysis to examine

gun restrictions, but clearly rejected a form of heightened scrutiny. Justice Breyers dissent inHeller

comes to the conclusion that some type of interest balancing that resembles a form of intermediate

scrutiny should apply where the government must show that it has a substantial government interest

in restricting the Second Amendment.71

Justice Breyers argument for intermediate scrutiny placed

gun ownership as not quite a fundamental right, but much more than a privilege. The majority

rejected this approach and states that they are unaware of any enumerated constitutional right whose

core protection has been subjected to a freestanding interest balancing approach.72 Since the Court

rejected Justice Breyers interest balancing approach and did not mention a standard of scrutiny to

adopt, it is obvious the Court intended to base Second Amendment analysis on historical justification.

SinceHellerwas the Courts first in depth review on the scope of the Second Amendment, it had

the flexibility to shape how gun restrictions would be decided by subordinate courts. In oral

arguments inHellerJustice Roberts stated:


10/22

10 | P a g e

Well, these various phrases under different standards that are proposed, compellinginterest, significant interest, narrowly tailored, none of these appear in theConstitution; and I wonder why in this case we have to articulate an all-encompassing

standard I mean, these standards that apply in the First Amendment just kind ofdeveloped over the years as sort of baggage that the First Amendment picked up.

73

Since the Court was able to start fresh, it did not feel the need to apply a standard of scrutiny on

Second Amendment jurisprudence.

What is more revealing is the number of times the Court used language such as historical

justifications, longstanding, and traditions.74 This is a clear indication that the Court was

adopting a historical standard. It is even more apparent inHellerandMcDonaldwhen the controlling

opinions explained the intent of the Second Amendment by discussing the ratification of the

Amendment and the history immediately following the ratification of the Second Amendment all the

way up to the post civil war.75

Many courts have adopted the practice of looking at the legislative findings and intent when

reviewing assault weapons bans.76 While it is important to look at the legislative intent of the law, it is

not the sole basis for reviewing gun restrictions. Legislative findings cannot be the sole purpose to

determine if a weapon is dangerous and unusual. The very essence of the Second Amendment is that

a tyrannical government cannot disarm their citizens.77

If upholding a gun law was solely based on

legislative findings then the legislature would have the ability to oppress the people by restricting a

fundamental right that is enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

The dissent inHeller IIsuggested the government has more flexibility to regulate firearms with

the text, history, and tradition approach then under the standards of scrutiny tests.78 I agree with this

assessment, historical justifications make the law clearer and less subjective than the standards of

scrutiny tests because the different standards (strict, intermediate, rational basis) is very subjective

and would give judges a wide latitude of discretion which would result in mixed results all around the

country, depending on the weight that a judge places on the governments interest and the right the

government wishes to infringe on. Furthermore, if the highest level of scrutiny would apply to the

Second Amendment than many gun restrictions such as the laws that prohibit firearms from sensitive


11/22

11 | P a g e

places or certain classes of people may not be upheld. The U.S. Supreme Court has mentioned a

variety of laws that would be upheld based on their historical justifications.79 For example, there has

been a longstanding tradition that firearms are prohibited from possession by felons or the mentally

ill.80 Since historical analysis makes the law more clear, there would more uniform decisions by other

judicial jurisdictions regarding various firearms restrictions across the country.

II. Modern Sporting Rifles (MSR) are of common use among law abiding citizens for lawfulpurposes.

InHeller, it was held that handguns were in common use by the public for self defense in the home

and thus the Court struck down the D.C. handgun ban. Wilson is likeHellerbecause like the handgun,

MSRs are of common use by our society. The AR-15 is the most popular weapon in the MSR family.

This weapon along with other MSRs is growing in popularity among law abiding citizens and has many

features that make them attractive and more efficient for self defense than other firearms.

InHeller, Justice Scalia articulated that the American public has overwhelmingly chosen the

handgun because of many of the characteristics that make them more efficient for the average citizen.81

Like many people choose the handgun for their features, many people choose a MSR because of its

unique characteristics. According to a study by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the top

five reasons that people purchase MSRs are for 1) accuracy, 2) reliability, 3) reputation of manufacturer,

4) availability of ammunition, and 5) it has good ergonomics.82 Like the handgun, MSRs have many

characteristics that make them attractive for use by the average citizen because they are easy to handle

and operate, and can be more effective for defensive situations.

Many of the features that are common on a MSR make the weapon more ergonomic, user friendly,

and safer than other rifles. For example, the pistol grip can be used so the user can hold the rifle in one

hand while dialing 911 with the other just like Justice Scalias example of why a vast majority of public

may choose the handgun for self defense.83

Likewise, the removal of a stock or the addition of a folding

stock makes the weapon more maneuverable in confined spaces such as the home. Another common


12/22

12 | P a g e

feature on a MSR is the collapsible stock. A collapsible stock allows the operator to adjust the stock to the

length to best fit the users body type making the weapon more comfortable to use. Furthermore, a

collapsible stock makes it safer to use for shooters of different sizes and allows them to maintain better

control of the weapon in a defensive position.

The barrel shroud is another feature common on MSRs, but really most weapons have some sort of

shroud attached.84

Its purpose is so the operator would reduce the risk of being burned by the barrel so it

is illogical to ban this feature because the safety of the user is sacrificed. A protruding forward grip on a

MSR provides leverage and stability to maintain better control of the weapon which increases the

weapons accuracy. A muzzle brake or compensator, which is common among shooting competitions, is

designed to counteract the recoil of the weapon which allows a citizen to place more accurate follow up

shots while taking a defensive position.85 All these features allow an operator to easier handle the weapon

which makes the weapon safer to operate; moreover, these features are what make MSRs very attractive

to a law abiding citizen.

A high capacity magazine, which Cook County has determined the threshold to be over 10 rounds, is

of common use by the public for self defense purposes. The study by the NSSF determined that out of

MSR owners who participated in the survey 32% used magazine with a 30 round capacity and 27% used

magazines with a 20 round capacity.86

Moreover, any semi-automatic rifle that is capable of accepting a

detachable magazine can accept whatever capacity that is made available. The prohibition of these

magazines can put a law abiding citizen at a disadvantage against an attacker because it is unlikely

attackers will follow the law on a prohibition of high capacity magazines.87

Moreover, it would not be

very practical for someone defending self or home to have to keep reloading in a high stress situation such

as facing an attacker in their home. It would place a huge burden on self defense when the occupants of

the home could be in danger.

All these features that make a semi-automatic firearm an assault weapon are nothing more than

features designed to make the rifle more effective, user friendly, and safer. Just because there have been

advances in firearms technology does not mean those weapons are not protected by the Second


13/22

13 | P a g e

Amendment.88

Hellerrejected the notion that the Second Amendment only protects the common weapons

at the time of its enactment.89 If this was the case, then the Second Amendment would only protect

muskets and other weapons from that era. A new type of firearm can be introduced into the market that is

far superior to its competition such as the Henry rifle in the Civil War era.90 This lever action rifle was far

more effective and produced greater firepower then the common single shot muzzle loaders of that time.91

Because of this technological innovation, lever action firearms gained popularity among civilians and

became a very common rifle for self defense, hunting, and recreation.92 Just like the Henry rifle at the

time, the MSR has gained popularity because of many of its technological advancements.

While there is no convincing source on how common MSRs are compared to other firearms, the

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) agency releases an Annual Firearms Manufacturer and Export

Report which can help gauge the popularity of MSRs. Although the report does not break down MSRs

from other firearms, the rifles manufactured from the most common manufactures that specialize in

MSRs can help approximate how many MSRs are made for sale compared to other rifles. From 1998 to

2010 there has been 1,372,458 rifles manufactured by the major MSR makers.93

The total number of rifles

manufactured by all rifle makers from 1998 to 2010 is 20,417,754. Considering that these MSR

manufacturers predominately produce MSRs, it can be assumed that at least 15% of all rifles made within

this time period are MSRs. Furthermore, there have been only 31,549 rifles exported from 1998 to 2010

by the top MSR makers; therefore, a little over two percent of MSR made were exported for sale which

leaves over a million MSRs for sale in the U.S. for this time period.

What is even more convincing is in Staples v. U.S., the Supreme Court has already said that semi-

automatic weapons have been traditionally accepted by the public for lawful use.94 The exact weapon

at issue in this case was the AR-15. The Court has implied that unlike the semi-automatic rifle, weapons

such as machine guns, hand grenades, and sawed off shotguns have been traditionally regulated and fall

outside the protections of the Second Amendment.95 Therefore, it would be safe to assume that the AR-

15, which is the most popular rifle, of the type of weapon Cook County is trying to ban is of common use

by the public for lawful purposes.


14/22

14 | P a g e

Brian Siebel released a report for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in support of an assault

weapons ban. Siebel claims that MSRs serve no self-defense or sporting purpose and calls these weapons

of war that were designed to slaughter people.96 This report often points out that many of the features

on MSRs were designed for military application.97 The problem with this argument is virtually all

weapons designed for civilian use came from the modification of military-type firearms.98 As shown

above, the features on the MSR enhance the safety and operation for use as a defensive weapon.99

These

features may have first been designed for military application, but they are also technological

advancements in the arms industry to make them safer and more efficient for civilian use.100

Furthermore,

these weapons do serve a sporting purpose as these weapons are used for target shooting and are

becoming increasingly popular for use among hunters.

III. Modern Sporting Rifles (MSR) are not dangerous and Unusual Weapons.It has been a longstanding tradition that dangerous and unusual weapons such as machine guns,

grenade launchers, and sawed off shotguns were not protected by the Second Amendment.101

Fully-

automatic weapons have been heavily regulated and are not typically possessed by law abiding citizens.102

InHeller, the Court made clear that the decision should not give uncertainty of the longstanding

prohibition on weapons that are dangerous and unusual.103

The MSR is not dangerous and unusual. These weapons can be distinguished from weapons

such as machine guns because a machine gun fires at a high rate of fire while holding down the trigger

while a MSR only fires one round per trigger squeeze. Moreover, a machine gun has the capability to

provide so much more collateral damage because of its high rate of fire and inaccuracy if an individual

was to use it for self defense. However, a MSR will provide little collateral damage because it is more

accurate, more versatile, and more user friendly. Therefore, the operator will more likely be able to shoot

well placed shots in an attacking situation limiting any collateral damage.

Wilson is different from People v.James because the .50 Cal BMG can cause much more

destruction then a MSR. Because the size of the round fired from a .50 Cal BMG it can produce much


15/22

15 | P a g e

more damage to personnel and infrastructures then a round from most MSRs which is usually a 5.56 MM

round.104 Additionally, the California 3rd District Court inJames said any assault weapons use can be

outweighed by the danger that it can be used to injure or kill another human being.105

This is a weak

argument because all firearms have the potential to injure or kill a person. MSRs pose no greater threat to

harm someone then the weapons that are not banned. They are not more dangerous or unusual then the

typical firearms that are allowed. Furthermore, MSRs are less dangerous than many other rifles that are

allowed. For example, a bolt action rifle such as the Springfield .30-06 that is equipped with a high

powered scope can be more lethal because of the caliber of the round is larger then what is common for

MSRs.106

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and many other critics that support an assault

weapons ban argue that these weapons are the preferred weapons by gangs and other criminals.107

Moreover, Cook County claims that MSRs are twenty times more likely to be used in a crime involving

firearms in the county.108 I find this claim hard to believe. According to FBI statistics, from 2006 through

2010, 34,544 murders were committed in the U.S. with the use of a handgun, while only 1980 murders

were committed by a rifle and 2,185 by a shotgun.109

Out of all the murders committed by firearms in this

time span, 72% of them were committed with a handgun. It is very likely that the murder statistics for

Cook County follow the same pattern. The FBI report proves that MSRs are not the preferred weapon

used by criminals. These statistics are staggering, which brings me to the conclusion that handguns which

are protected by the Second Amendment are more dangerous than MSRs because handguns are the

weapon of choice by criminals.

Conclusion

MSRs are firearms that should be protected under the Second Amendment based on traditional

and historical analysis that these weapons are of common use by law abiding citizens for lawful

purposes and they are not more dangerous and unusual then other firearms that are protected.

Furthermore, to determine if other weapons are protected by the Second Amendment the courts


16/22

16 | P a g e

should evaluate whether the weapon is of common use by the public in conjunction with deciding if

the weapon is dangerous and unusual. Now that Wilson is making its way through the court system,

this case will most likely land in the U.S. Supreme Court where the ban should be held

unconstitutional.

InHeller, The Supreme Court addressed that they were aware of the problem with gun violence,

but noted that the Constitution gave the District of Columbia a variety options such as regulating

handguns to combat the problem of gun violence.110 The Court made clear that the Constitution takes

certain policy choices off the table such as the complete prohibition of handguns.111

The same can

be said about MSRs, Cook County can seek to regulate them to keep them out of the hands of

criminals or the mentally ill, but a complete prohibition on these weapons would not pass

Constitutional standards.

1U.S. Const. amend. II.

2Assault weapons is used generally to refer to the semi-automatic rifles that share the external appearance of

military assault rifles, but are modified so they are incapable of firing on fully-automatic. The assault rifle was

first introduced by the Germans in WW2 as a fully-automatic select fire rifle. The MP-44 which was called the

storm rifle was considered the first true assault rifle. See Phillip Peterson, Gun Digest: Buyers Guide to Assault

Weapons, 2123 (2008).3Wikipedia: the Free Ency., Assault Rifles,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle(accessed Nov 25, 2012).4H.R.Rep. No. 103489, at 1820 (1994).

5The AR 15 rifle stands for Armalite which was the company who first made the rifle. AR does not stand for assault

rifle or automatic rifle. The AR 15 is not an assault rifle. Assault rifles are fully automatic machine guns that have

been restricted from civilian use since 1934. See Natl. Shooting Sports Found., Modern Sporting Rifle Facts,

http://www.nssf.org/MSR/facts.cfm; 18 U.S.C.A. 922 (West).6Unlike the M16/M4 rifles, the AR 15 only shoots one round with one pull of the trigger.

7A select fire rifle is a rifle that has a lever that you can switch from safety to semiautomatic to three round burst or

fully-automatic. This is a feature on the modern M16/M4 that is used by our troops. The AR-15 does not have this

characteristic; it is strictly a semi-automatic weapon.8Marlin, Owners Manual Marlin Bolt Action Rimfire Rifle, 5, available at

http://www.marlinfirearms.com/pdfs/manuals/MFC_Bolt_Action_RF.pdf(accessed Nov 25, 2013).9

Wikipedia the Free Ency., Semi-automatic firearm,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm(accessedOct 5, 2012).10Id.

11Eugene Volokh,Implementing theRight to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and A

Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443, 1484 (2009).12

Ency. Britannica, assault rifle,http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39165/assault-rifle(accessed Nov 25,

2012); Wikipedia: the Free Ency., Assault Rifle,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle(accessed Nov 25, 2012).13

Natl. Shooting Sports Found, Modern Sporting Rifle Facts,http://www.nssf.org/MSR/facts.cfm(accessed Oct 15

2012).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_riflehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_riflehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_riflehttps://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=0103680790&pubNum=0100014&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Folder*cid.e739d92f76d041a990c0e5bcb8298f26*oc.Search)https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=0103680790&pubNum=0100014&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Folder*cid.e739d92f76d041a990c0e5bcb8298f26*oc.Search)https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=0103680790&pubNum=0100014&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Folder*cid.e739d92f76d041a990c0e5bcb8298f26*oc.Search)https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=0103680790&pubNum=0100014&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Folder*cid.e739d92f76d041a990c0e5bcb8298f26*oc.Search)https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=0103680790&pubNum=0100014&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Folder*cid.e739d92f76d041a990c0e5bcb8298f26*oc.Search)https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=0103680790&pubNum=0100014&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Folder*cid.e739d92f76d041a990c0e5bcb8298f26*oc.Search)http://www.nssf.org/MSR/facts.cfmhttp://www.nssf.org/MSR/facts.cfmhttp://www.marlinfirearms.com/pdfs/manuals/MFC_Bolt_Action_RF.pdfhttp://www.marlinfirearms.com/pdfs/manuals/MFC_Bolt_Action_RF.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearmhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39165/assault-riflehttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39165/assault-riflehttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39165/assault-riflehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_riflehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_riflehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_riflehttp://www.nssf.org/MSR/facts.cfmhttp://www.nssf.org/MSR/facts.cfmhttp://www.nssf.org/MSR/facts.cfmhttp://www.nssf.org/MSR/facts.cfmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_riflehttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39165/assault-riflehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearmhttp://www.marlinfirearms.com/pdfs/manuals/MFC_Bolt_Action_RF.pdfhttp://www.nssf.org/MSR/facts.cfmhttps://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=0103680790&pubNum=0100014&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Folder*cid.e739d92f76d041a990c0e5bcb8298f26*oc.Search)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle


17/22

17 | P a g e

14PL 103322, September 13, 1994, 108 Stat 1796 (codified at18 U.S.C. 921,922 (1994)).

15Cal. Penal Code Ann. 30510 (West); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. 53-202c (West).

16Wilson v. County of Cook, 968 N.E.2d 641, 646 (Ill. 2012).

17Id.

18A duplicate refers to any firearms that are manufactured that are a replica of a model of a firearm that is on the list

the county bans even if they call it by a different name.19

962 N.E.at 641.20

Michael S. Obermeier, Scoping Out the Limits of "Arms" Under the Second Amendment, 60 U. Kan. L. Rev. 681,

684 (2012).21Dist. of Columbia v. Heller,554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008);McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020, (2010)

22A pistol grip is similar in appearance and function to the grip of a pistol, which protrudes below the action of a

gun. This is a safety and utility feature of a gun, often a rifle or shotgun [which] allows the gun to be securely

gripped by the user. It also helps the user to manage the recoil. A folding stock is a stock of a gun that can be

folded back to allow use of the gun in more confined places, or to allow the gun to be stored more easily. A

collapsible stock is a stock that can be lengthened or shortened to fit the user, or to allow the gun to be stored

more easily. A barrel shroud is a safety feature [on a rifle] which the barrel of a gun is enclosed in a perforated

metal or plastic guard, preventing the user from being burned by a hot barrel. A muzzle brake is a device which

attaches to the muzzle of a gun in order to redirect some of the escaping gases back toward the user. This

reduces recoil but increases the noise heard by the user. A muzzle compensator is a device which attaches to the

muzzle of a gun in order to redirect some of the escaping gases upwards. This reduces the tendency of the guns

muzzle to rise upwards (and can also reduce recoil somewhat) when the gun is fired, allowing the user to stay on

target. See Learn About Guns,http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/07/glossary-of-gun-related-terms/

(accessed Nov 30, 2012); Wilson, 968 N.E.2d at 648- 49.23

Wilson at 648 - 49.24Id.

25Id. at 646.

26Id.

27Id. at 646-647.

28Id. at 647.

29Wilson v. Cook County, 935 N.E.2d 516 (Ill. 2010);McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3050.

30Wilson v. Cook County, 943 N.E.2d 768, 779 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2011) appeal allowed, 949 N.E.2d 1104 (Ill.

2011) and aff'd in part, rev'd in part sub nom. Wilson v. County of Cook, 968 N.E.2d 641 (Ill. 2012).31

Wilson, 968 N.E.2d at 647.32Id. at 658.

3392 U.S. 542 (1875).

34Id. at 553.

35Id.

36307 U.S. 174, (1939).

37Id. at 177.

38Heller, 554 U.S. at 625.

39Id. at 570.

40Id. at 595.

41

Id. at 630.42Id. at 645 (Breyer J. dissenting).

43Id. at 576 - 627.

44Id. at 628

45Id. at 628 - 29.

46130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010).

47Cruikshank, at 553;McDonald, at 3050.

48McDonald, at 3050.

49Heller, 554 U.S. at 626.
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=18USCAS921&originatingDoc=Iba80eb387fd811e196ddf76f9be2cc49&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Folder*cid.e739d92f76d041a990c0e5bcb8298f26*oc.Search)https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=18USCAS921&originatingDoc=Iba80eb387fd811e196ddf76f9be2cc49&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Folder*cid.e739d92f76d041a990c0e5bcb8298f26*oc.Search)https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=18USCAS921&originatingDoc=Iba80eb387fd811e196ddf76f9be2cc49&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Folder*cid.e739d92f76d041a990c0e5bcb8298f26*oc.Search)https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=18USCAS922&originatingDoc=Iba80eb387fd811e196ddf76f9be2cc49&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Folder*cid.e739d92f76d041a990c0e5bcb8298f26*oc.Search)https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=18USCAS922&originatingDoc=Iba80eb387fd811e196ddf76f9be2cc49&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Folder*cid.e739d92f76d041a990c0e5bcb8298f26*oc.Search)https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=18USCAS922&originatingDoc=Iba80eb387fd811e196ddf76f9be2cc49&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Folder*cid.e739d92f76d041a990c0e5bcb8298f26*oc.Search)http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/07/glossary-of-gun-related-terms/http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/07/glossary-of-gun-related-terms/http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/07/glossary-of-gun-related-terms/http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/07/glossary-of-gun-related-terms/https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=18USCAS922&originatingDoc=Iba80eb387fd811e196ddf76f9be2cc49&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Folder*cid.e739d92f76d041a990c0e5bcb8298f26*oc.Search)https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=18USCAS921&originatingDoc=Iba80eb387fd811e196ddf76f9be2cc49&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Folder*cid.e739d92f76d041a990c0e5bcb8298f26*oc.Search)


18/22

18 | P a g e

50Id.

5118 U.S.C. 922(g) (2006).

52Id.

53Miller, 307 U.S. at 177;Heller, 554 U.S. at 627.

54Heller II v. Dist. of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244, 1252 (D.C. Cir. 2011);Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 701

04 (7th Cir.2011); United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673, 680 (4th Cir.2010); United States v. Reese, 627 F.3d 792,800 - 01 (10th Cir.2010); U. S. v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85, 89 (3d Cir.2010)55

Heller II, at 125256Heller II at, 1256;Ezell at 684;Marzzarella at 89.

57174 Cal. Rptr. 3d 662, 676(Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2009).

58Id.

59A .50 BMG is a rifle that has a 50 caliber bullet that has been used for semi automatic or fully-automatic use.

Because of the size of the round it can cause much more damage to people and property then a 5.56 bullet

common on MSRs. SeeWikipedia the Free Ency., .50 BMG,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG(accessed Nov

30, 2012).60James, 174 Cal.App 4

that 676.

61Heller II, 670 F.3d 1244.

62Id. at1262 - 64.

63Id. at 1261.64Heller IIat 1256 ;Marzzarella, 614 F.3d at 95 cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 958 (U.S. 2011); Chester, 628 F.3d at 682;

Ezell, 651 F.3d at 702.65

Joseph Blocher, CATEGORICALISM AND BALANCING IN FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENT ANALASIS, 84

N.Y. L.R. 375, 382 (2009).66

U.S. v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638, 639 -43 (7th Cir. 2010) cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1674 (U.S. 2011); U.S. v. Williams,

616 F.3d 685, 692 (7th Cir. 2010) cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 805 (U.S. 2010);Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1256 - 58.67

Adam Winkler, Scrutinizing the Second Amendment, 105 Mich. L. Rev. 683, 731 (2007).68Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1271 (Kavanaugh J., dissenting).

69Id. at 1273.

70Heller, 554 U.S. at 628 - 35.

71Id. at 689 - 90 (Breyer J., Disenting).

72

Id. at 634.73Transcript of Oral Argument, note 5 at 44,Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2738 (No. 07-290) available at

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf74

Hellerat 573 - 636; McDonaldat 3025 - 49.75Hellerat600 - 621;McDonaldat 3034 - 48

76James at 672;Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1259.

77David Pittman,Heller: A Bulwark Against Tyranny, 8 Appalachian J.L. 201 (2009).

78Heller IIat 1274.

79Heller, 554 U.S. at 626.

80Volokh, 56 UCLA L. Rev. at 1482

81Some of the reasons people may choose the handgun include: it is easier to store for enhanced accessibility in a

time of emergency; it can easily be handled by someone who lacks the strength to use a rifle; and the weapon can be

held with one hand so the person may call the police with the other.;Heller, 554 U.S.at 62982Natl. Shooting Sports Found., Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR): Comprehensive Consumer Rpt 2010 Ownership,

Usage, and Attitudes towards Modern Sporting Rifles, 21,http://nssf.org/share/PDF/MSRConsumerReport2010.pdf

(accessed Nov 23, 2012) (This Survey was conducted by Sports Marketing Survey and 7, 372 people participated in

this survey).83Hellerat 629.

84Wikipedia the Free Ency., Barrel Shroud,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_shroud(accessed Nov 30, 2012);

Learn About Guns,http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/07/glossary-of-gun-related-terms/(accessed Nov

30, 2012).85

Patrick Sweeney, Gun Digest Book of the AR-15, Volume II, 184(2007).
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=18USCAS922&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Folder*cid.bb13dac51d344501aeaa4b4fb49a61c5*oc.Recommended)#co_pp_16f4000091d86https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=18USCAS922&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Folder*cid.bb13dac51d344501aeaa4b4fb49a61c5*oc.Recommended)#co_pp_16f4000091d86http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMGhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMGhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMGhttp://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdfhttp://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdfhttp://nssf.org/share/PDF/MSRConsumerReport2010.pdfhttp://nssf.org/share/PDF/MSRConsumerReport2010.pdfhttp://nssf.org/share/PDF/MSRConsumerReport2010.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_shroudhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_shroudhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_shroudhttp://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/07/glossary-of-gun-related-terms/http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/07/glossary-of-gun-related-terms/http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/07/glossary-of-gun-related-terms/http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/07/glossary-of-gun-related-terms/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_shroudhttp://nssf.org/share/PDF/MSRConsumerReport2010.pdfhttp://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMGhttps://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=18USCAS922&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Folder*cid.bb13dac51d344501aeaa4b4fb49a61c5*oc.Recommended)#co_pp_16f4000091d86


19/22

19 | P a g e

86Natl. Shooting Sports Found., Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR): Comprehensive Consumer Rpt 2010 Ownership,

Usage, and Attitudes towards Modern Sporting Rifles, 27http://nssf.org/share/PDF/MSRConsumerReport2010.pdf

(accessed Nov 23, 2012).87

Dick Anthony HELLER, et al., Appellants, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Appellees., 2010 WL 5108962

(C.A.D.C.), 30-3188

Michael P. O'Shea, The Right to Defensive Arms After District of Columbia v. Heller, 111 W. Va. L. Rev. 349, 380(2009).89

554 U.S. at 625.90

O'Shea at 381.91Id.

92Id.

93ATF, Statistics,http://www.atf.gov/statistics/(accessed Nov 23 2012) (Using data from the top MSR

manufactures: Colt, Armalite, Olympic Arms, Rock River Arms, DPMS Arms, and Bushmaster).94

Staples v. U.S., 511 U.S. 600, 612 (1994).95Id. at 611-12.

96Brian Siebel,Assault Weapons: Mass Produced Mayhem 1, 22 (Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, October

2008) availableathttp://www.bradycampaign.org/studies/view/5897Id. at 1, 16, 22.

98Volokh, 56 UCLA L. Rev. at 1478.99

Many of the advancements in arms technology was for military purposes; for example, the first lever action rifles

were introduced in the civil war which were far superior to weapons used at the time. Eventually they became

common for civilian use. SeeO'Shea, 111 W. Va. L. Rev. at 381.100

Volokh, at 1478.101

Id. at 1482.102

Id. at 1484.103

554 U.S. at 627.104

Natl. Sports Shooting Found., MSR Consumer Report 2010,

http://nssf.org/share/PDF/MSRConsumerReport2010.pdf(3/4 of MSR users used 5.56 mm rounds).105

James at 676.106

The .30-06 uses a 7.62 MM bullet which is more lethal and powerful then the 5.56 MM round typical in the

majority of MSRs. See Globalsecurity.org, 7.62 MM Versus 5.56 MM - Does NATO Need Two Standard RifleCalibers,http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/MVT.htm(accessed Nov 25, 2012).107

Siebal at 22.108

Wilson, 968 N.E.2d at 656.109

FBI, Crime in the U.S.: Expanded Homicide Data Table 8,http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-

u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls(accessed Nov 23, 2012).110

554 U.S. at 636.111

Id.
http://nssf.org/share/PDF/MSRConsumerReport2010.pdfhttp://nssf.org/share/PDF/MSRConsumerReport2010.pdfhttp://nssf.org/share/PDF/MSRConsumerReport2010.pdfhttp://www.atf.gov/statistics/http://www.atf.gov/statistics/http://www.atf.gov/statistics/http://www.bradycampaign.org/studies/view/58http://www.bradycampaign.org/studies/view/58http://www.bradycampaign.org/studies/view/58http://nssf.org/share/PDF/MSRConsumerReport2010.pdfhttp://nssf.org/share/PDF/MSRConsumerReport2010.pdfhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/MVT.htmhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/MVT.htmhttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/MVT.htmhttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xlshttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xlshttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xlshttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xlshttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xlshttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xlshttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/MVT.htmhttp://nssf.org/share/PDF/MSRConsumerReport2010.pdfhttp://www.bradycampaign.org/studies/view/58http://www.atf.gov/statistics/http://nssf.org/share/PDF/MSRConsumerReport2010.pdf


20/22

20 | P a g e

Appendix A:

Note: Data Compiled using ATF statistics available athttp://www.atf.gov/statistics/.

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1998

Rifles

Made

1999

Rifles

Made

2000

Rifles

Made

2001

Rifles

Made

2002

Rifles

Made

2003

Rifles

Made

2004

Rifles

Made

2005

Rifles

Made

2006

Rifles

Made

2007

Rifles

Made

2008

Rifles

Made

2009

Rifles

Made

2010

Rifles

Made

Total

Rifles

Made

Rifles Made by the Top MSR Manufacturers

Colt Armalite Bushmaster Olympic Arms Rock River Arms DPMS Total
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/http://www.atf.gov/statistics/http://www.atf.gov/statistics/http://www.atf.gov/statistics/


21/22

21 | P a g e

Appendix B:

Note: Data Compiled using ATF statistics available athttp://www.atf.gov/statistics/.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total

Rifles Exported by the Top MSR Manufacturers

Colt Olympic Arms Armalite Bushmaster Rock River Total Rifles Exported
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/http://www.atf.gov/statistics/http://www.atf.gov/statistics/http://www.atf.gov/statistics/


22/22

22 | P a g e

Appendix C:

Note: Data compiled using FBI statistics available athttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-

u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Muder Victims by Weapon 2006 - 2010

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xlshttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xlshttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xlshttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xlshttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xlshttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

assault weapons bans are an assault on the second amendment

Documents