Gun Myth #3: “Military style” firearms aren’t covered by the 2nd Amendment and/or aren’t useful for self-defense
Please hit the like button right above this text and comment below! If I’ve missed any big gun myths, tell me in the comments section and I’ll keep going. If not I plan to move into the substantive debate. So if you have any questions about the arguments for/against gun control, put those in the comments as well and I’ll be sure to address them.
I started this series with a pervasive myth that shapes many Americans’ entire view of gun violence in America. That is, the myth that mass shootings are a thing that only happens in the U.S.
Myth #1: Mass shootings are a uniquely American problem
Then I addressed the idea that the kinds of firearms we use today were unfathomable when the 2nd Amendment was written.
Myth #2: Our Founding Fathers couldn’t have imagined the firepower available to us today
And now we move to our third myth. Some of you are going to object that I’m quibbling on definitions. You don’t have to enter the gun debate, but if you do I only ask that you know what you’re talking about.
Myth #3: “Military style” firearms aren’t covered by the 2nd Amendment and/or aren’t useful for self-defense
This one is a bit of a conversation-ender, because it shows the depth of the chasm between the two main sides of the gun debate. But that’s an article for another time. I’m going to try to untangle this ball of yarn in a few paragraphs. It will be tough because this is sort of a myth-ception that contains three separate myths layered on each other: (1) “military style” is a meaningful classification for firearms, (2) “military style” firearms aren’t covered by the 2nd Amendment, and (3) “military style” firearms aren’t useful for self-defense.
Before we continue, here’s just one example of this myth in action: after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, Jimmy Kimmel said “Our forefathers wanted us to have AK-47s is the argument, I assume...Orlando, Newtown, Aurora, San Bernardino, every one of these shootings the murderer used automatic or semi-automatic rifles, which are not weapons you use for self-defense. They’re weapons that are designed to kill large numbers of people in the shortest possible amount of time…” I know Jimmy Kimmel isn’t a politician, and he doesn’t have any formal power. But I’ve heard this sentiment hundreds (thousands?) of times from citizens and politicians alike.
Here’s Professor Noah Feldman from Harvard Law: “[I]s there a constitutional right to a military-style semiautomatic rifle like the AR-15?”1
1) “Military style” is not a meaningful or useful classification for firearms. As far as I can tell, people mean one of two things when they say “military style firearm.” Some people mean the M4 rifle the military uses, which is already illegal.2 Others mean rifles that look like the M4 but are functionally different, which amounts to cosmetic classification of guns.
Militaries use such a wide variety of firearms that the term “military style” is meaningless. The U.S. military, for example, uses 9mm pistols identical to the pistols carried by me and 3 million Americans every day, pump action shotguns identical to the ones commonly used for self-defense and hunting, and bolt action sniper rifles that are identical to hunting rifles. They also use belt-fed machine guns of all types, which are rarely seen in private collections due to cost and the paperwork required to own one. What most people in this category mean when they say “military style rifle” is the M4 assault rifle. Assault rifles are already basically (see footnote 1) illegal in the U.S. An assault rifle is, among other things, selective-rate, meaning that it can fire either semi-automatic or automatic. In other words, it’s what would be called a machine gun colloquially (and by the ATF).
The most popular rifle in America, the AR-15, is not an assault rifle - it is functionally different from the M4 in that it is only semi-automatic (one trigger pull fires one bullet). But why is it called an “Assault Rifle 15?” Here’s where a historical tragedy of nomenclature causes a lot of confusion. The “AR” stands for ArmaLite Rifle, not “assault rifle” or “automatic rifle.” It was originally manufactured by ArmaLite, Inc., hence the name. Manufacturers other than ArmaLite call their rifles different names (e.g., WW15, ST15, M&P15). The selective-rate feature of assault rifles is what makes them more deadly (or at least that’s the perception), which is why that’s the feature regulated so heavily. The cosmetics of the rifle are not functional.
If by “military style” people mean rifles that look like military rifles but are functionally different, this is categorizing guns based on their cosmetics. It’s as useful as saying “red cars are fast.” What a gun looks like has no bearing on its usefulness or functionality.
2) Even if “military style” were a useful classification for firearms, the 2nd Amendment specifically covers weapons that have military applications. Before I continue, saying that a firearm has a military application does not mean that it is a “military style” firearm, and not every gun that looks “military style” has an obvious military application. For example I know a guy who knows a guy who has a .22 caliber AR-15 style rifle. The .22 is best suited for target shooting and killing rodents. Could you kill a human with it? Yeah sure it’s possible, but most people wouldn’t intentionally roll into a gunfight with a .22. It’s just not ideal. There are more obvious firearms that have no clear military application, though, like a .22 caliber single-shot target pistol.
Justice Thomas noted in his concurring opinion in Printz v. United States (1997) that “the Second Amendment guarantees a citizen’s right to possess...ordinary military equipment that could contribute to the common defense” (see also United States v. Miller (1939), D.C. v. Heller (2008)). To the extent that “military style” rifles are a thing, that’s exactly what the 2nd Amendment is for.
3) Semi-automatic rifles are used for self-defense. There’s not a lot of explaining to do here, because this myth is simple and wrong.
Nothing you’re about to read should be read as a recommendation for your specific situation. When it comes to choosing a gun and ammo to defend yourself and your loved ones, you need to make decisions based on where you live, what your walls are made of, and what specific threats you might face.
These rifles are commonly used for defensive purposes. The same characteristics that make the AR-15 and similar rifles ideal for offense also make them ideal for defense, especially (but not only) if you’re defending yourself against multiple threats. They are relatively inexpensive, readily available, lightweight, easy to handle due to their negligible recoil, and easy for anyone of any body type to operate with very little training. If you are ever unfortunate enough to defend your family against an armed intruder, something like an AR-15 isn’t a bad option. If you are a woman who is unfortunate enough to have your home invaded by more than one man, you might regret following then-VP Biden’s advice and will wish you had something like an AR-15 instead of your double-barrel shotgun.
Federal law prohibits the possession of newly manufactured machine guns. As of 2020, the national registry of machine guns contained registrations for 726,951 machine guns. “Firearms Commerce in the United States Annual Statistical Update 2020,” Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 2020, https://www.atf.gov/file/149886/download. To my knowledge, a legally owned machine gun has never been used in a crime.
I always wondered about the “military style” classification—if it was legitimate or simply used for marketing/to manipulate perception. This is all really good information I have (sadly)never heard before. Big fan of your answer to Garrett’s question and would love to read more on that.
I’ve enjoyed reading your takes on these. What do you propose we do to lower gun violence in the US?