Professional Documents
Culture Documents
120715zor 6j37
120715zor 6j37
120715zor 6j37
The
15A479
15M61
15M62
15-5527
15-5748
15-5767
15-6027
15-6806
14-9299
14-10447
15-65
15-147
15-210
15-245
15-270
15-272
15-381
15-384
15-385
15-389
15-390
15-394
15-396
15-397
15-398
15-407
15-408
15-418
15-422
15-426
15-431
15-433
15-441
15-455
15-462
15-542
15-5043
15-5147
15-5149
15-5635
15-5740
15-5886
15-5940
15-5958
15-5964
15-6282
15-6344
15-6346
15-6352
15-6354
15-6358
15-6364
15-6369
15-6386
15-6389
15-6390
15-6391
15-6394
15-6395
15-6405
15-6410
15-6411
15-6412
15-6421
15-6423
15-6427
15-6436
15-6453
15-6465
15-6474
15-6477
15-6486
15-6498
15-6530
15-6533
15-6534
15-6542
15-6546
15-6547
15-6576
15-6639
15-6652
15-6676
15-6692
15-6707
15-6715
15-6720
15-6721
15-6726
15-6727
15-6728
15-6729
15-6732
15-6736
15-6737
15-6739
15-6741
15-6742
15-6744
15-6749
15-6752
15-6770
15-6771
15-6772
15-6773
15-6775
15-6776
15-6777
15-6780
15-6781
15-6782
15-6785
15-6787
15-6791
15-6795
15-6799
15-6800
15-6803
15-6804
15-6818
15-6819
15-6820
15-6838
15-6842
15-6844
15-6848
15-6850
15-6851
15-6854
15-6855
15-416
is denied.
15-471
The motion of
The
See Martin
15-6758
15-6826
Justice
IN RE GEORGE H. GAGE
15-6955
IN RE JOHN H. JONES
15-6972
IN RE MARVIN GREEN
The petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied.
15-6807
IN RE WILFREDO G. LORA
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.
Justice
IN RE OTIS F. ERVIN
The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
REHEARINGS DENIED
14-8863
14-9429
14-9590
J. D. T. V. UNITED STATES
14-9691
14-9742
14-9841
14-9853
14-9943
14-10258
14-10281
14-10328
14-10420
IN RE COREY ROWE
14-10444
15-53
15-112
15-160
15-171
15-279
15-5157
15-5362
15-5478
15-5479
15-5541
15-5590
15-5747
15-5911
15-5975
15-6047
D-2857
D-2858
D-2859
D-2860
D-2862
D-2863
D-2864
D-2865
10
D-2866
D-2867
D-2868
11
No. 15133.
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,
and reasoned that the Citys ban was permissible because
[i]f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault
weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners. 784
F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that
Heller held that the availability of long guns does not
save a ban on handgun ownership, it thought that Heller
did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of
most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense. Id., at 411.
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under
Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives
available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the
law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful
purposeregardless of whether alternatives exist. 554
U. S., at 627629. And Heller draws a distinction between
such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful
uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns.
Id., at 624625. The Citys ban is thus highly suspect
because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million
Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784
F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens
who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes,
including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid.
Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep
such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767768;
Heller, supra, at 628629.
The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many
common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation
about the laws potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at
411412. The court conceded that handgunsnot assault
weaponsare responsible for the vast majority of gun
violence in the United States. Id., at 409. Still, the court