## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 M ICHAEL M O O RE , e tal ., an d M ARY E. S HEP ARD , e tal ., P laint if fs -App el lants , v. L I S A M ADI GAN, A TTO RNEY G ENERAL OF I LLINO IS, e tal ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t s fo r the Central D istricto f Illino is and the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No s. 3: 11-cv -3134- S EM-BG C and 3: 11-cv -405-WD S -PMF

— Sue E . M yer sc oughand Wi ll iam D. Stiehl, Judg es .
A RG UE D J UNE 8, 2012

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 11, 2012

Befo re P OSNER, F LA UM, a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . These tw o appeal s, co nsol i dated f o ro r ala r g um en t, c ha l l en g e den i al s o fd eclar at o r y a nd i nj uncti ve re l i efso ught i n m ate ri al l y i denti calsui ts und er th e S ec o nd Am en dm en t. An I l l i no i s l aw f o rbi ds a per so n, w i th exce pti ons m ai nl y forpol i ce an d o therse curi ty perso nnel, hunter s, and m em ber s of tar get shoo ti ng cl ubs,

### 2 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 7 2 0 I LCS5 /2 4

- 2 , t o c a r r y a gu n r e a dyt o u s e ( l o a de d, im m ed iat ely ac c es sib le

— th at i s, ea sy to re ach

— an d u n c as ed ). Th er e a re ex c ep tio n s fo r a p er so n o n h is ow n p ro p er ty (ow n ed or re n te d ), or inh i s h o m e (bu t if it’ s a n ap artm en t, onl y t he r e an d no t i n t he apart m ent b u i l ding’ s co m m on a re as) , o r i n hi s fi xed pl ac e o fb us i ne ss , o ron the pr o per tyo fs o m eo ne who ha s per m i tt ed him to be th er e wi tha r ea dy- to
- us e g un. 720 I LC S 5/24- 1( a) ( 4) , ( 10) , - 1. 6( a) ; se e Peo plev. D igg ins, 9 19 N .E .2d 3 27, 3 32 (Ill. 200 9); P eop le v. La ubsc her, 701 N
. E.2 d 489, 49 0–92 ( I l l

. 19 98); Pe opl ev. Smith, 374 N
. E
. 2d 472, 475 (I ll

. 1978); Pe opl ev. Pul l ey, 80 3 N
. E.2 d 953, 95 7–58 , 96 1 ( I l l

. A pp . 20 04)
. Even car ry i ng an unlo aded gun i n publi c, i fi t’ s uncase d and i m m ed i ate l y a cces sibl e, i s pro hibi ted, o therthan to pol i ce a nd o therexce pt ed pers ons, unl ess car ri ed openl y outsi de a v ehi cl e in an uni ncor pora ted ar ea an d am m u n itio n fo r t h e g u n is n otim m ed iat ely ac c es sible. 720 I L C S 5/24-1(a) (4)( ii i) , ( 10)(i ii ), - 1.6( a)(3) (B). The appell ants conte nd thatthe I l l i noi s l aw viol ate s th e S ec o nd Am en dm en t as i nt er pr et ed i n Di s t r i c to f C o l u mbia v. Heller, 55 4 U.S
. 57 0 ( 2008 ) , and hel d ap pli cabl e t o th e s ta te s in M cD o nald v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 13 0 S
. Ct. 3 0 2 0 (2 0 1 0). H e l ler he l d t h a t t h e S e c o n d A men dm ent pr ote cts “the ri ght o fl aw - abi ding, re sponsibl e ci ti zens to use a rm s in d efense o fhear th and h om e.” 554 U
. S. at63 5. But the Suprem e Cour t has no t y et a ddr es s e d t h e q u e s t i o n whe th er t he Se cond A m endm ent c re ate s a r i gh t o fse l f

- defe nse outsi de the hom e. The di str i ct c ourt s ru led thati t doe s not, and so di sm i sse d the t w o sui ts f orf ai l ure to sta te a c l a i m.N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 

### 3 T he p ar ti es a nd the a m i cic ur i ae ha ve t r ea te d us to hund re ds ofpages of a rgum ent, i n ni ne br i ef s. The mai n fo cus o fthe se s ubmi ss i ons i s hi st o r y . The supp or ter s o fthe I l l i noi s l aw pre sent h isto ri calev i dence th atthe r e was no g en er all y rec o g ni ze d pr i va te r i g ht to ca r r ya r ms i n p u b l i c i n 1 7 9 1 , th e y e a rth e S e co nd A m endm ent was r ati fi ed

— th e cr i t i c a ly e a rf o rde te r m i ni ng the a m endm ent’ s his tor i calm eani ng, accor ding to M cDonal d v
. Ci ty of

Chi cago , sup ra , 13 0 S
. Ct . a t 30 35 and n. 14
. S i m i l are vi den ce a g ains t th e existenc e o fa n e i ght ee nthcentur y r i ght t o have w eapons in t h e ho m e forpurposes ofse l f

- defe nse r atherthan j ust m i l i ti a d u ty had of c ou rs e b ee n p r e s en te d to th e Su p re m e C ou rtin th e Hellerca se . See , e.g., Sa u l C or n ell, A Well-R egu la ted M il it ia 2 –4, 5 8– 65 ( 20 06 ) ; Loi s G. Sc hwoe r er, “To Hol d a nd B ea r A rm s: The Engl i sh Per specti ve, ” 7 6 Ch i
. - Ke n tL
. R e v. 2 7, 34

– 3 8 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ; Do n Hi g g i nb o tha m, “T he S e c o nd Amen dm en t i n Hi st o r i ca lC o nt ex t, ” 16 Co ns ti tu ti o na lCo m m en tar y 263, 26 5 (19 99 ). The Di str i ct o fCol um bi a had ar gued that “the or i gi nal unders t a nd i ng o f th e S ec o nd Am en dm en t w as ne i th era n indi vi dualr i g ht ofse l f

- defe nse no r a co l l ecti ve ri ght o fthe sta tes , but ra ther a c ivic righ t t h at gu ar an te ed th at cit ize n s w o u l d b e ab le to kee p and beartho se ar m s nee ded to m eetthei r l ega l ob lig a t i o nto p ar tic ip at e in a w ell-re gu lat ed m ilitia .” C or n ell, sup ra , at 2 ; see als o P a u l Fin ke lm an , “ ’A W ell Regul ate d M i l i ti a’ : The S eco nd A m endm ent in H i sto ric al Pers pecti ve, ” 7 6 C hi.- Ken tL. Re v. 195, 213– 14 (2000); Don H i ggin b otham , “The F edera l i zed M i l i ti a Debat e: A N eg lec te d A sp ec t of Se c on d A m en d m en t Sc h ola rs h ip ,” 55 Wi l l i a m & Ma ryQ. 39 , 47

– 5 0 ( 1 9 9 8 ) ; Ro y G. Wea the r up ,

### 4 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 “St anding A rm i es and A rm ed Cit i zens : A n H i sto ri cal A nal ysi s o fthe Se cond A m endm ent, ” 2 Has t i ngs Cons t i t ut i o n a l L
. Q. 961, 994– 95 (1975). The S upr eme Cou r t r ej ec te d the a r g um en t. The appell ees askus t o re pu diat e the Court ’ s hi sto ri calanal ysi s. That w e c an ’t d o. N orcan w e i gnor e the i m pli cati on of the an alys is t h at th e con stitut ional ri gh t of arm ed self

defen se i s br o ade rtha n the r i g htt o ha ve a g un in o n e’s hom e. The fi rs t s entence o fthe M cD ona ld o pin i o n s ta te s th at“ two y ea r s ag o , i n D i s t r i ctof C o l um bia v. Heller, we he l d tha t th e S ec o nd Am en dm en t prot ects the ri ght t o kee p and bearar m s forthe pu rpos e o fs e l f

- de fe ns e, ” M cDonal d v
. Ci ty of Chi cago , sup ra , 130 S. Ct. at30 26, and l ate r i n the opi ni on we re ad that “ Hellerexpl o r ed th e r i g ht ’ s o r i g i ns , no tingtha t th e 16 89 Eng l i shBi l lo fRi gh ts e xpl i ci tly pr o te ct ed a r i g ht to kee p arm s forse l f

- defe nse, 55 4 U.S
. a t 593, and that by1 765, Bl ac k st o ne was abl e to a ss er t th atthe r i g ht to ke ep and bear ar m s w as ‘ one ofthe fund am entalr i ghts of En gli sh m en, ’ id . a t 59 4.” 1 30 S . C t. at 3 03 7. A n d im m ed iat ely the Co ur t adds tha t “Bl acks ton e’ s as se ss m en t w as shar ed by the Am er i can co l oni sts
. ” Id
. Bo th Hellera nd M cD ona ld do say that “t h e n eed f ordefense ofse l f, f am i l y, and proper ty i s m o st acute ” inth e h om e, id
. at30 36 ( em phasi s a dd ed); 55 4 U.S
. at 628, but that doesn’ t m ean i t i s no t a cute outsi de the hom e. H eller rep eated ly invoke s a b r o ade r S ec o nd A m e n d m en t rig h t t h an th e rig h t t o h av e a gu n in o ne ’ s ho m e, as when i t sa y s th at th e am en dm en t “gua r an te e[ s] the i ndi vi dualr i g htto p oss es s an dN os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 

### 5

car ry w eapons i n case of confro ntati on. ” 554 U
. S. at 59 2. C on fro n ta tio n s a re n otlim ite d to th e h om e. The Se cond A m endm ent s tat es i n its e n ti re ty that “a w el lr egul ate d M i l i ti a, being ne c ess ar y t o the s ecuri ty o fa fr e e S t a t e , the r i ghto fthe p e o pl e t o k e e p and bearArms, s ha l lno t be i nfr i ng ed” ( emphas i s adde d). Th e r i g htt o “ b e a r ” a s di s t i nct fr om the r i g htt o “ k e e p” ar m s i s unli kel y to re fer to the ho m e. To s peak o f“be ar i ng” ar ms wi thin o ne ’ s ho me wo ul d a t a l l t i mes ha ve been an awkw ar d usage. A righ t to bearar m s thus i m pli es a r i ght t o car rya l oaded gun o utsi de the hom e. A nd o ne does n’thave to be a hi sto ri an to real i ze that a r i ght t o kee p and bearar m s forper sonal se l f

- defe nse in th e e igh t e e n th ce n tu ry co u ld n ot rat ion ally h a v e b ee n lim ite d to th e h om e. Su p p os e o n e liv ed in w hat was the n the w i l d w est

— th e O h io V alle y for ex am p le ( f o ru nt i lthe Lo ui s i a na P ur c ha s e the Mi s s i s s i pp i Ri ve rwas the wes te r n b o unda r y o fthe Uni te d States), w h er e t h e r e w e r e h o s t i l e I n d i a n s. O n e w ou ld need fro m ti m e t o ti m e t o l eave o ne’ s ho m e t o obt ai n su p p lies fro m the near esttr adingpost, and en ro ute o ne would be as m uch ( probabl y m or e) atri sk i fu na r med a s o ne wo ul d b e i n o ne ’ s h o me un a r med

. T he si tu at i o n in Eng l an d was di ffer en t

— ther e was no wi l derne ss a nd the r e wer e no ho st i l e I ndi an s an d t h e r i ght t o hunt w as l a r gel y l i m i ted to lan d ow n er s, Sc h w oe re r, sup ra , at 34–35 , w ho w ere few. De fen der s o fthe I l l i nois law r ea chb ac kt o the f ourt eenth- centur y S tatute o fN orth am pton, wh i ch pro

vi ded that unle ss on K i ng’ s busi ness no m an coul d “go nor

### 6 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 rid e a rm ed by n igh t n or by d ay , in Fa irs , m ar ke t s , n or in th e pr es en ce of the J us ti ce s o ro th erM i ni st er s, no ri n n o part el sewhere. ” 2 Edw

. I I I, c. 3 ( 1328 )
. C h ief J usti ce Cok e i nt e r pr e t e d the s t a t ut e to al l o w a p e r s o n t o p o s s e s s we a po ns i ns i de th e ho m e butno t to “ as se m bl e f o r ce , tho ug h h e be e xt r emel y thr ea te ne d, t o go w i thhi m t o c hur ch, or m ar ke t, or a n y ot h e r p lac e.” E d w ar d C ok e, Ins t i t ut e s of t heLaws of

Engl and16 2 ( 1797 )
. But the sta tute enum er ate d th e l o ca ti o ns a t whi chg o i nga r m ed was tho ug ht d an ger ous t o pu bl i c sa fety( such as i n f ai rs o r i n th e p r e s e n c e o fj u d g e s ) , a n d C o k e ’ s r e fe r e n c e t o “ a s s e mbl e f o rce” sug g es ts tha t th e st atut o r y l i m i ta ti o n o fthe ri ght of sel f

- defe nse w as base d o n a concern w ith arm ed gan gs, th ieves, an d assass ins rath er t h a n w ith ind oors ve r su s o ut do o r s as s uch

. I n s i mi l a rv e i n S i r Joh n K nig ht’s C a se, 87Eng. Rep. 75 , 76 ( K. B. 1 68 6) , int er pr et ed th e st atut e as puni sh i ng “peopl e who go ar m ed to te rr i fy the King’ s s ubj ects
. ” S om e weapons do no t t er ri fy the publ i c ( such as w el l

- concea l ed w eapons) , and so i fthe sta tu te w as ( as i t m ay have been) i ntended to prot ect the pu b lic f rom b eing fri gh ten ed or intim idat ed b y t he bra nd i shi n g ofweapons, i t co uld nothave appli ed to allw eap ons or allcarriage ofw eap o ns . Black ston e’s su m m ary of the s ta tu te i s si m i l ar : “ th e o ffen ce o fr i di ng o rg o i nga r m ed, wi th dangerou s or unu s ual w ea p on s, is a cr i m e a gainst the publ i c peace , by t erri fyi ng the go od p eople ofthe l and.” 4 Com m e nt ar i e s on theLa w of Engl and 14 8– 49 (17 69) ( em p h as is a d d ed ). H eller tr eat ed Blac kst one’ s r efer ence to “danger ou s o runusual w eapons” as evid en ce th at th e ow ne rship of s o me t y pe s o fN os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 

### 7 fi re ar m s i s no t pr ote cted bythe Second A m endm ent, 55 4 U
. S. at62 7, but the Cour t ca nnot hav e thought al l g un s a r e “ da ng e r o us o ru nu s ua l ” a nd c a n b e bann e d, as o th er wi se the r e woul d b e no r i g htt o keep a ha ndg un i n one’ s ho m e forse lf-defe nse. A nd wh i l e a nother E n glis h so u rc e, R ob er t G ar d in er , The Com pleatCo nst able 18–1 9 ( 3d ed. 17 07) , sa ys th at constabl es “m ay sei ze an d t ak e away ” l o ade d g uns worn o rc ar r i ed bype r so ns not doin g the K ing’s b us iness, i t d oes not sp ecify the c i rcum sta nces that w oul d m ake the exer ci se of su cha utho r i typr o per, l eta l o ne w o ul d war r an t a pr o se cuti o n. Blac kst one d es c rib ed th e rig h t o f arm ed se lf-p re se rv atio n as a fu n dam entalnatur alr i ght o fEngl i shm en, o n a parwi ths ee k i ngr edr ess in the c o ur ts o rpe ti ti o ni ng the g ove rnm ent. 1 Blac ks to n e, sup ra , a t 1 36, 13 9–40
. The C our t i n Helleri nfe rr ed fro m thi s that ei g ht ee nth- ce ntur y Eng l i shl aw r ec o g nize d a r i g ht to p ossess gu ns f or resi stan ce, sel f- p reservat ion, selfdefen se , a nd pr o te ct i o n a g ains t b o thpub l i c an d pri vate vi ol ence. 55 4 U
. S. at59 4. The Courtsa i d that A m er ica n law w as th e s am e. Id . at 5 9 4

– 9 5. A n d in c on tr as t t o th e s i t u a t i on in E n gla n d , in les s p ea c ea b le A m erica a distinc tion betw een keep ing a r m s for selfde f e ns e i n th e h o me a n d c a r r y i n gth e m o u t s i d e th e h o me w o ul d, a s we s a i d, ha v e b e e n i r r a t i o na l

. Al l thi s i s debat

ab l e o fc o u r s e , b u tw e a r e b o u n d b y th e S up r e me Court’ s hi sto ri calanal ysi s b ecause i t was ce ntra l to the Co ur t’ s ho l di ngi n Heller
.

### 8 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 T w en ty -firs t c en tu ry Il lin ois h as n o h os tile Ind ians. But a Ch i c a g o a n i s a g o o d de a l mor e l i k e l y t o be at ta c ke d on a sid e w a l k in a ro u gh n eig hb or h oo d th an in his ap artm en t on th e 3 5 t h floor of the Pa rk Tow er. A wo manwh o i s b e i ngs t a l k e d o rh as o b t a i ne d a p rotective ord er against a violent ex -h u s b an d i s m ore vul nerab le to being at tack ed w hi l e wal ki ng to o r fro m her hom e than w hen i nsi de. S he has a str onge r sel f

- defe nse cl a i m t o b e a l l o we d t o c a r r y a g un i n pu b l i c than the re si dent of a f ancy apart m ent b uil ding ( com ple te w i th door m an) has a cl ai m to sl eep w i th a l oaded gu n under h e rma t t r e s s . B u tI l l i n o i s wan t s to d e n y th e f o r me rc l a i m, w hi l e co m pel l ed by M cD ona ldto honorthe l atte r . Tha t creates ana rbi tr ary di ffer en ce . To c o nfi ne th e r i g htt o b e a r m ed t o the home i s to di vo r ce the S ec o nd A m endm ent fro m the right o fse l f

- defe nse desc ribed i n Hellera nd M cD ona ld
. I t i s no t a prop er tyr i g ht

— a r i g ht to ki l la houseguest w h o i n a fi t o fae sthet i c fury tr i es to s l as h y o urc o py o fN or m anRo ck wel l ’ s paint i ng S a n t a w ith E lves
. T ha ti s n o ts e l f

- de fe ns e , a nd thi s cas e l i ke Hellera nd M cD ona ldi s j ust about sel f

- defe nse. A gun i s a pote nti aldangerto m or e peop le if ca rr i ed i n publi c than j ust kept in the hom e. But the othe r si de o fthi s co i n i s th atkno wi ngth atmany l aw- ab i di ng c itiz en s a re w alk in g th e str ee ts ar m ed m ay m ak e c rim in als tim id. Given that i n C hicag o, at l e ast, m ost m urd ers occuro utsi de the hom e, Chica go Pol i ce Dep ’t, Cri m eat a G la nc e: D i s t r i ct1 13 ( J an. –J une 201 0) , the net e ffect on cr i m e r ate s in ge n eraland m urder ra tes i n part i cul ar of a llow in g t h e c ar ria ge of gu n s in p u b lic is uncert ai n both as a m att er of theo ry an d em pir i cal l y.N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 

### 9 “Based on fi nd i ngs fro m nati onall aw as se ssm ents, cr oss n a t i on al c om p ar iso n s, an d ind ex st u d ies , evid en c e is i nsuffi ci ent t o determ in e w hetherthe degre e o r i ntensi ty offi re ar m s r egul ati on i s a sso ci ate d w i th decr eas ed ( or i n c r e a s e d ) v i o l e n c e . ” R o b e r tA
. H a h n e ta l

. , “ F i r e a r ms Law s and the Redu cti on of Vio l ence: A Sy ste m ati c R evi ew , ” 2 8 A m . J. P reven tiv e M ed
. 40, 59 (2 0 0 5 ); cf. Joh n J. D on oh u e, “T h e Im p ac t of C on c ea led -C ar ry L aw s,” i n E valuating Gu n P olicy E ff ec ts on Crim e and Viole nce 28 7, 31 4–21 ( 20 03 )
. “Whethe r th e ne t effec t of r el ax i ng co nc ea l ed- carry l aws i s to i nc r ea se o rr edu ce the bur deno fc r i m e, the r e i s g o o d r ea so n t o b el i ev e th atthe ne t is not large...

. [T]he ch an ge in gu n carryin g a p p ears to be co ncentr ate d i n rur aland suburba n ar eas w h er e c rim e rat es ar e alre ad y rela tiv ely low , am on g p eo p le w ho a re atr el ati vel y l ow r isk ofvi cti m i zati on

— w hi te, m i dd l e-ag ed , m i dd l e- cl ass m al es. The av ai l abl e data ab ou t p er m it h old er s a lso im p ly t h a t t h ey are atfairly low riskof m isu sin g g u n s, co n sis te n t w i t h t h e re lat ive ly l ow arr estr ate s obser ved to date f orper m i t ho l ders. B a s e d o n a v a i l ab l e e mpi r i c a ld a t a , th e r ef o r e, we expe c tr e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e p ub l i c s a fe t y i mpa c ti fc o urts i nv a l i da t e l a ws tha tp r o hib i tg unc a r r y i ngo ut s i de the ho m e, assum i ng tha t s om e s or t o fper m i t s yst em f orpubli c ca rr y i s a l l owed to st and.” Phi l i p J
. Cook, J ens Ludw i g & A dam M
. S am aha, “Gun C ontr olA fter Heller : Th reats an d Si d e sh ow s from a SocialW elf are Pers pecti ve, ” 5 6 U C LA L. R ev . 10 41, 1 08 2 (2 009) ; se e al so H
. S te r l i ngBur ne tt, “ Te xa s Con ce al ed H an dgu n C a r rie r s ; Law

- A b i ding P u b lic B e n efa c t o r s , ” w w w . nc p a.org/p d fs/ba324

. p d f (visi ted Oc t. 29, 2012). Bu t we n ot e w i th di sapprova lthatthe openi ng br i ef

### 10 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 f o rthe pl aint i ff s i n a ppea lno . 1 2- 17 88, in qu o tingthe l as t se nt en ce abo ve fr o m the a r ti cle b y Co o ka nd hi s c olle ag u es , d ele te d w ith ou t ellipses the l ast c l ause

— “ass um i ng tha t s om e s or t o fper m i t s yst em for p u b lic c ar ry is allo w ed to st an d .” I fguns cannot be c ar ri ed outs id e th e ho m e, an o ffi ce rwho ha s r ea so nabl e su spi ci o n t o s to p a nd fri sk a per son an d fi nd s a co nceal ed gun on hi m can ar r es t hi m , a s i n Un i t e d S t a t e s v. M ayo , 3 61 F. 3d 802, 80 4- 08 ( 4th Ci r . 2 00 4) , a nd thus tak e the g un o ffthe str e e tb e f o r e a s ho o t i ngo c c ur s ; a nd thi s i s ar gued to s uppo r t th e ba n onc ar r y i ngg uns o ut si de th e ho m e. But i t i s a weak ar gum ent. Oft en the offi cerwil lhave no s uspici on ( the gun i s co nc ea led, afteral l )
. A nd a sta te m ay be a bl e t o re quir e “o p en car ry ”

— that i s, requ ire p erson s w ho c a r r y a gun i n p ub li c to carry i t in p lain v iew rather than co nceal ed. S ee D i s t r i ctof C o lum bia v. Heller, sup ra , 55 4 U.S . a t 626; J am es Bisho p, N ote , “ H id d en o r on the H i p: The Ri ght( s) to C arry A fter Heller, ” 9 7 Corn e l l L. Re v. 90 7, 920–21 ( 20 12 )
. M an y crimi na l s woul d c o nt i nue t o c o nc ea lthe g uns th ey ca r r i ed, i n o r der to pr es er ve th e element ofsur pri se and avoid t h e p ri ce o fa gun perm i t; so the pol i ce woul d have the sa m e opp or tuni ti es ( l i m i ted as the y a r e, i fthe c o nc ea l m en t i s effec ti ve a nd the c o nc e a l e rdo e s n o tb e ha v e s us pi c i o usl y) tha tthe y do today to tak e co nceal ed guns o ffthe str eet
. S o m e studi es ha ve f o und tha t ani nc r ea se i n gun o w nership cau ses an i nc reas e i n h om ici d e rates. M ark D ug gan ’s stud y, rep orted i n h is arti cle “M ore G un s, M oreN os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 

### 11 Cri m e, ” 1 09 J
. Pol
. Econ
. 1 0 8 6 , 1 1 1 2 (20 01 ), i s ex empl ary ; a nd s ee a l so Ph i l i p J
. Coo k& J en s Lu dwi g, “ Th e S o c i a lCo s t s o fGu n Own e r s hi p, ” 90 J. Pub. Econ
. 379, 387 ( 2006 )
. Bu t the i ssue i n th is case i sn’ t owne r s hi p; i t ’ s c a r r y i ng g un s i n pu bl i c. Du gg an’ s s tudy f i nd s t hat e ven t he co nceal ed car ry i ng o fguns, wh i ch m any s tat es al l ow, d oe sn ’ t l ead to an i ncre ase i n gun ownershi p. 10 9 J
. Po l
. Econ
. at 11 06–07. M or eov er, vi ol ent c ri m e in the U ni ted St ate s has bee n f al l i ng f orm any y ear s and so ha s gun ow ne rship , Patrick E gan, “Th e D eclining C ultu re o f Gu n s a n d V i o l e n c e i n t h e U n i ted St ates,” w w w .th em on ke yc ag e.o rg /b log /2 01 2/ 07/21/thede c l i ni ng - c u l t u r e - o f

- g un s - a nd

- v i o l e nc e - i n- t he

- un i t e ds t a t e s ( v i s i t e d O c t
. 2 9 , 2 0 1 2 ) ; s e e a l s o T o m W. Sm i th, “Publ i c Atti tudes Tow ar ds the Regul ati on of Fi rearm s” 10 (U n iv e r s it y o f C h icago N at’l O p inion R e s e a r c h Ce n t er, M ar. 2007 ) , http: / / i cpgv. o r g / p d f /NO R C Pol l

. p d f ( v i s i ted Oct. 29 , 20 12)

— i n th e s a me p e r i o d i n wh i ch gunl a ws have beco m e m or e per m i ssi ve. A few stud i es fi nd thatst ate s that a l l ow c on c ea led car ri age o fg uns outs i de the hom e a nd i m pose m i ni m al re str i cti ons on obtaini ng a gun pe rm it have experi enced i nc r e a s e s i n a s s a ul tr a t e s , tho ugh no t in ho mi c i de ra tes
. S ee I an A yr es & J ohn J

. Donohue I I I, “M or e Guns, Less Cri m e F ai l s Agai n: The Lates t Evi dence Fr om 19 77 –200 6, ” 6 E con. J. Watch 2 1 8 , 2 2 4 ( 2 0 0 9 )
. Bu ti th as not been shown that tho se i nc r e ase s per si st. Of a nother, si m i l arpaper by A yr es and D onohue, “S hoot

i n g D o w n th e ‘M or e G u n s, L es s C rim e’ H yp ot h es is,”

### 12 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 55 St an. L. Re v. 11 93 , 127 0– 85 (20 03 ) , i t h as be en sa id th at ifth ey “h ad ex ten d ed their analysis by one m ore year, t h e y wo u l d hav e co nc l ude d tha t t he se l a ws [ l aw s a l l owing concea l ed handgun s t o be c ar ri ed i n pu bl i c ] r e du c e c r i me. ” Ca r l i s l e E. Mo o dy& T ho mas B. M a r v e l l, “ Th e De b a t e o n S ha l l

- I s s ue La ws , ” 5 E con. J. Wat ch 269, 291 ( 2008 )
. A yr es and Dono h u e d i sag re e tha ts uc h l a ws r e du c e c r i me, b utthe y a dmi tthat d at a a n d m od elin g p ro b lem s p re ve n t a st ro n g c laim that they inc rease cr i m e. 55 St an. L. Re v. at 1281 –82, 12 86–8 7; 6 E con. J. Watch at23 0–31
. Conceal ed car ri age o fguns m i gh t incre ase the death ra te fro m ass aul ts ra ther than i ncre ase th e nu m ber o fa s s a u l t s . B u tth e s t u d i e s d o n ’ tfi n d th a tl a ws that al l ow co nceal ed car ri age i ncre ase the death ra t e fr o m s ho o t i ng s , a nd thi s i n t urn c a s t s do ubt o n the fi nd i ng o fan incre ase d cri m e ra te w hen conce al ed ca r r i ag e i s al l o wed; f o ri fthe r e wer e m o r e co nfronta ti o ns w i th an arm ed cri m i nal, one w oul d expect m or e s hoot i ngs. M or eo ve r, th er e is n o re as on to e x p e c t Il l i n o is to i m pose m i ni m al per m i t r est ri cti ons o n car ri age ofguns ou tside the ho m e, f oro bvi ousl y thi s i s no t a st ate th a t h a s a s t r o ng pr o - g un c ul tu r e, unl i k e th e sta tes that began al l owing concea l ed car ri age befor e Heller a nd M acD ona ldenl ar g ed th e sc o pe o fS ec o nd Am en dm en t ri ghts. Cha r l es C. Br an as e t al

. , “ I nv estigatingthe Li nk Betw een Gun Posse ssi on a nd Gun A ssau lt,” 99 A m . J
. of Pub. Health 2 0 3 4 , 203 7 (2 00 9), fin d s t h at as sa u lt vi cti m s a re m or e l i kel y t o be a rm ed than the r estN os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 

### 13 ofthe popu l ati on i s, wh i ch m i ght b e thought e vi dence th atgoi nga r m ed i s no t effec ti ve s el f

- defen se . But that fi nd i ng does not ill um i nate the det er re nt effect o fkno wi ngtha tp o t e nt i al v i c t i ms mayb e a r med

. Davi d Hem enw ay & Debor ah A zr ael, “T h e Rela ti ve Fr equency o fOffensi ve an d D efensi ve Gu n U ses : Resul ts fro m a N ati onalS urve y, ” 1 5 Vi o l e n c e& Vi c t i ms 25 7, 2 71 ( 20 00 ) , fi nds tha t a per so n c ar r y i nga g un i s m or e l i ke ly to use i t t o com m i t a cr i m e than to de fen d hi m self fro m c r i m i na l s. Buttha t i s l i k e sa y i ng that sol die rs ar e m or e l i kel y to be ar m ed than ci vi l i ans. A nd bec ause few erthan 3 perce nt o fgun- re l ate d d ea th s a re from ac c id en t s , H ah n etal., sup ra , at 40 , an d b e c a u s e I l l i n o i s a l l o ws th e u s e o fg u n s i n h u n t i ng and tar get shoo ti ng, the l aw cannotpl ausibl y b e defended on t he gr ound t h at it r ed u c es t h e acci dental death r ate , unle ss i t coul d b e shown that al l owing guns to be c ar ri ed i n p ubl i c ca uses gun ownershi p to i ncre ase , and w e hav e s een that there i s no ev i dence ofthat

. I n sum , the em pir i call i te ra ture o n the effects ofal l owing the c ar ri age of guns in pu bl i c f ai l s t o est abl i sh a p r a g mat i c de fe ns e o fthe Il l i no i s l a w. Bi s ho p, sup ra , at 92 2– 23 ; M ar k V . T u s h n et, O utof Range : W

hy t he Cons t i t ution C an’ tEnd theBat t l eove rGuns 11 0–11 ( 2007 ). A n yw ay t h e Su p re m e C ou rt m ad e cl ear i n Hellerthati t was n ’t go i ng to m ake the ri ght t o bear ar m s d ep en d o n casual ty counts. 55 4 U.S
. at63 6. I fthe me r e p o s s ib i l i t y tha ta l l o wi ngg un s t o b e c a r r i ed i n publi c would i ncre ase the cri m e o r death r ate s suffi ced to j usti fy a b an , Hellerwould have been dec i de d the o the rwa y, f o rtha tp o s s ib i l i t y wa s a s gr eat inth e D ist ric t o f C olu m b ia a s itis inIl lin ois
.

### 14 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 A n d a b an as br oa d as Il lin ois ’s c an ’t b e u p h eld m er e l y o n th e g ro u n d th at it’s n otirra tio n al. E zell v. Ci ty of

Chi cago , 651 F. 3d 684, 701 ( 7 t h Cir. 20 11 ); U nited Sta tes v. Ya nc ey, 62 1 F
. 3d 681, 6 83 ( 7th Cir
. 20 10) ( per curi am ) ; se e a l so He l l e r v . Dis t r i c to f C o l u mbia , sup ra , 554 U .S
. at 62 8 n . 27; U nited Sta tes v. C hester, 62 8 F
. 3 d 6 7 3 , 6 7 9

– 8 0 ( 4 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 )
. Othe rwis e th i s court w o ul dn’ t ha ve ne ede d, i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sk o ien , 614 F.3d 638 , 643–4 4 (7th C ir . 2 010) (en ban c), to mar sh ale xt en si ve e m pi r i ca le vi den ce t o j us ti fy the l es s r es tr i ct i ve fede r all aw tha t f o rbi ds a per so n “ who h a s b e e n c o n v i c t e d i n a n y c o u r to fa mi s d e me a n o rc r i me of dom est i c vi ol ence” to p os se ss a fire ar m in o ra ffec tingi nt er st at e co m m er ce . 1 8 U. S
. C. § 9 22 ( g)(9)
. I n Sk o ien we said thatthe gov er nm ent had t o m ake a “st ro ng sho w i ng” that a gun b an w as vi talto pu bl i c sa fety

— i t w as not enough that the ban w as “rati onal

. ” 6 1 4 F
. 3 d a t 6 4 1
. I l l i no i s ha s no t mad e t hat st r o ngs ho wi ng

— and i t w ou ld h ave to m ake a str onge r sh ow in g in th is c a s e t h a n t h e g ov er n m en t d id i n Sk o ien , bec ause the c urtai l m ent o fgun r i ghts w as m uch narr ower: there the gun ri ghts ofper sons convi cted o fd o me s t i c v i o l e n c e , h e r e th e gu n r i g h t s o ft h e e n t i r e l a wabi ding adult popu l ati on o fI l l i noi s. A bla n ke t p ro h ibit ion on c a r r y in g g u n in p u b lic p r even ts a p erson from de fend ing him self an yw he re ex ce pt i ns i de hi s ho m e; a nd s o s ubs ta nt i ala c ur ta i l m en t of t he r i g ht o f a r med s e l f

- de f e ns e r equi re s a g r e a t e rs h o wi n go fj u s t i fi c a t i o n th a n me r e l y th a tt he pu bl i c m ightbene fi t o n bal ance fro m such a curt ai l m ent, thou gh ther e i s no pro ofi t would. In contr ast,N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 

### 15

w hen a sta te bans guns m er el y in part i cu lar pl aces , such as pu b l i c school s , a pe r s o n c a n prese r v e an und im in ished r i ght o f se l f

- defe nse b y no t en te r i ngtho se pl ac es ; s i nc e th at ’ s a l es se rb ur den, the sta te doesn’ t nee d to prove so st ro ng a need. S i m i l ar l y, th e s t a t e c a n pr e v a i lwi th l e s s e v i de nc e wh e n, as i n Sk o ien , guns a r e f o r b i dde n t o a cl ass o f per s o ns who pr e s e nt a hi g he r tha n a v e r a g e r i s k o fm i susi ng a gun. S ee al so Ezel l v. Ci ty of Chi cago , sup ra , 65 1 F
. 3d at 708. A nd em p irical evi d en ce of a pu bli c safety con cern c an be dispense d with al tog ether w hen the ban is l i m i te d t o o bv i o us l y da ng er o us pe r so ns s ucha s fel o ns an d th e m en ta lly ill. Hel le r v. D is tr ictof C o lu m bia , sup ra , 55 4 U.S
. at 626. I l l i noi s has l ots o fo pti ons f orpro tect
i ng i ts peopl e fro m being shot w i thout havi ng to el i m i nate al lposs ibi l i ty ofar m ed sel f

- defe nse in publi c. Rem ar kably, I l l i noi s i s the only st ate tha t m aint ains a fl a tb a n o n c a r r y i n gr e a d y - t o - u s e g u n s o u t s i de the hom e, though m any s tat es used to ban c a rr yi ngc o nc e a l e d gun s o ut s i de the h o me, Bi s ho p, sup ra , a t 91 0; Da vid B. Kope l, “ The S ec o nd Am en dm en t i n the N in et eenth Century, ” 1 998 BY UL. Re v. 13 59, 1432 –33 ( 1998 )

— a m or e lim ite d p ro h ibit ion th an Il linoi s’ s, however

. N ot eve n M ass achusett s has so fl at a ba n a s I l l i no i s , tho ugh the Di s t r i c to fCo l umb i a do e s , s e e D. C. C od e §§ 22- 4504 to
- 4504
. 02, and a few sta tes d id d u ri n g th e n in et ee n th ce n tu ry , Kachalsky v. C ounty o f West c hester, N os. 11

- 3642 , - 3962 , 20 12 W L 59075 02, at * 6 ( 2d Cir

. N ov. 27, 20 12)

—bu t no longer. I t i s no t that a l lst ate s but Illinoi s a re i nd i ffer ent t o th e dan g er s th atwi des pr ea d pub l i c ca r r ying o fg uns

### 16 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788

m ay pose. S om e m ay be. B u t ot h er s hav e deci ded that a pro per bal ance b etween the i nter esti n sel f

- defe nse an d th e d an ge rs cr ea t e d b y c ar ry in g g u n s in p u b lic is to l i m i t th e r i g htt o c ar r y a g un to r es po ns ibl e per so ns ra th er th an to ba n p u b lic c ar ria ge alt og et h er , as Il l i n ois w i th i ts m eag erexce pti ons com es cl ose to doi ng. Even j uri sdic ti ons l i ke N ew Yor k S tat e, wh er e offi ci al s hav e br o ad di sc r e t i o n t o d e n y a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r g un perm i ts, r eco gni ze th at the i nter esti n sel f

- defe nse extends ou ts ide the hom e. There i s no sugg est i on that som e uni que char acte ri sti c o fcr i m i nalact i vi ty i n I l l i noi s j usti fi es the s tat e’ s t aking a differ ent a p proa ch fro m the othe r 49 sta tes
. I fthe Illinoi s a pp ro ach w er e dem on st rabl y s up er i or, o ne would expect at l eas t one ortwo other sta tes to have em ula ted i t. A p ar t fro m th e u su a l p ro h ibit ion s o f gu n ow n er sh ip b y c h ild re n, felon s, il l e g a l alien s, lu n at ics , an d in sensitive p l aces such a s publ i c sc hool s, the propri ety o fwhi ch was no t que st i o ne d i n Heller(“n ot h in g in th i s o pi ni o n s ho ul d b e ta k en to c as t do ubto n l o ng st an di ng pr o hibi tions o n the po ss es si o n o ffi r ea r m s byfel o ns an d the ment al l y i l l, o rl aws f o rbi ddi ngthe c ar r y i ng o ffi r ea r m s in s en si ti ve pl ac es s ucha s sc ho o l s an d g o v e r n me n t b u i l d i n g s , ” 5 5 4 U
. S
. a t 6 2 6 ) , s o me state s sen s ibly requ ire th at an ap p li can t for a hand gun perm i t e s t a b lish h is c o m p etence i n handli ng fi re ar m s. A per son w h o c ar rie s a g u n i n p u b l i c b u ti s n o tw e l l t r a i n e d i n th e u s e o ffi r e a r ms i s a m enace to hi m sel fand others

. S ee M ass ad Ayo o b, “ The S ubt l et i es of Safe Fi r ea r m s H an dling, ” Backwoods Hom eM agazin e, J a n. / F e b

. 2 0 0 7, p .N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 

### 17 30; Debra L. Karch, Li nd a L. Dahlb er g & N i m esh Pa t e l , “ S u r v e i l l a n c e f o r V i o l e n t De at hs

— N ati onal Vio l ent Death Report i ng S yst em , 16 S t a t e s, 2 0 07, ” M orbi dity a nd M o r t a l i t y W e e k l y Re port , p. 11 , w w w . cdc. gov /m m w r/ pd f/s s/ ss5 9 0 4
. pd f ( v i s i ted Oct. 29, 201 2)
. S ta te s al so pe r m i t pr i va te b us i ne ss es a nd othe r pri vate i nsti tuti ons (su ch as churches) to ban guns f ro m thei r prem i ses . I f enough pr ivat e i nstit u tio n s deci ded to do that, the ri ght t o car rya g u n i n p u b l i c wo u l d h a v e mu c h l e s s v a l u e a n d mi g ht ra re l y b e e xerci sed

— i n w hi ch e vent the inval i dati on o f the I l l i noi s la w m i ght ha ve l i ttl e e ffect, wh i ch opponents of gun ri ghts w oul d w el com e. Recentl y the S eco nd Ci rcui t u p h el d a N ew Yor k s tat e law that requ ires a n ap p li can t for a p erm it to carry a concea l ed hand gun in p u b lic t o dem onst ra te “p ro p er c a u s e ” t o ob ta ina lice n se . Kachalsky v. C ounty o f Westch ester, sup ra . T h i s i s th e i nv er s e o fl a ws that f orbi d dangero us pers ons to have han d gu n s; N ew Yor k pl aces the burden on the a pp l i c ant t o show that he nee ds a handgu n t o w ar d offdanger ous per sons. A s the co urt expla i ned, 20 12 W L 59075 02, at* 13, N ew York“deci ded notto ban hand gun posse ssi on, but to lim it i t t o thos e ind i vi du al s who have an actual re as on (’p ro p er ca u se ’) to ca rry th e w ea p on . In th is v e i n , l i c e n s i n g i s o r i e n t e d t o t h e S e c o n d A m e n d m e n t’s p r o t e c tio n s ... . [ I ] nstea d of for b id d in g a n yo n e from car ry i ng a h an d gu n in pu bl i c, N ew Yor k too k a m or e m oder ate approa ch to ful fi l l i ngi ts i m po r ta ntob j ec ti ve a nd r ea so nabl y c o ncl ud ed that onl y indivi du al s hav i ng a bona fi de re aso n

### 18 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 to posse ss hand guns sho uld be al l owed to i ntro du ce th em int o th e p u b lic s p h er e.” The New Yo r kg un l aw uph el d i n Kachal s ky, alth ou gh one ofthe nati on’ s m ostr est ri cti ve such law s ( und er th e law ’s “pr op er cau se” sta nd ard , an ap p li can t for a gun perm i t m u st dem onst ra te a nee d fo r sel f

- defe nse g r ea te rtha n tha t o fthe g en er alpub l i c, s uchas b eing th e t ar ge t o f p er so n al t h re at s, i d. at* 3, * 8) , i s l ess r est ri cti ve th anI l l i no i s’ s l aw. Our pr i nc i palr es er va ti o n abo ut the S eco n d Ci rcui t ’ s an aly sis (a part f r o m di sa g r ee m en t, unn ec es sa r y t o bo r e th e r ea derwi th, wi th so m e o f th e hi st o r i ca l an aly si s i n th e op i ni on

— w e r ega rd the hi sto ri cali ssues as se ttl ed by Heller ) is its su gg es tio n t h at th e Se c on d A m en d m en t s h ou ld have m uch gr eat ersco pe i n sid e the hom e than o ut si de si m pl y b ecaus e o th erpr o vi si o ns o fthe Co ns ti tu
tio n h av e be en h eld to m ake that d i stincti on. Fo r exam ple , th e o p in ion st at es th at “in La wre nce v . Te xas , the [ Suprem e] Courtem phasi zed thatthe sta te’ s e ff or ts to re gul ate pri vate se xual conduct betw een c onse nti ng adul ts is e sp ec ially su sp ec t w h e n itint ru d es int o th e h om e.” 2012 W L 59075 02, at* 9. W el lo fco urse

— th e i n te re st in ha v i ng s e x i ns i de o ne ’ s ho me i s muc h g r e a t e rthan the inter esti n havi ng se x on the si dew al k in fro nt o f one’ s ho m e. But the i nter esti n sel f

- p ro te cti on i s a s g re at ou ts id e a s in sid e t h e h om e . Inan y e ve n t t h e c ou rtin Kachal s kyused the di stincti on be tw een s elf- prot ecti on i nsi de and outsi de the hom e m ai nl y t o su ggest that a st an d ar d les s d em an d in g t h an “s tr ict sc ru ti n y” sh ou ld g o ve r n the c o ns ti tu ti o na l i tyo fl aws l i m i tingthe c ar r y i ng ofguns ou tsi de the hom e; o ur a nal ysi s i s no tN os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 

### 19 b as ed o n degr ees o fscruti ny, but on I l l i noi s’ s f ai l ure to j usti fy the m ost re str i cti ve gun l aw of any ofthe 50 sta tes
. J udg e W i l k i ns o n e xpr es se d c o nc ern in U nited S t a tes v. M a scia nd a ro , 63 8 F
. 3d 458, 475 ( 4th Ci r. 20 11) , that “the r e m ayo rmay no t be aS ec o nd Am en dm en t r i g ht i n s o m e pl ac es b ey o nd the ho m e, bu t w e ha ve no i dea whatthose pla ce s ar e, whatthe c r i te r i a f o rs el ec ting th em sh o ul d b e, whats l i di ng s ca l es o fs cr ut i ny m i ght a pp l y t o them , o r any o ne o fa num ber of ot h er questi ons. I t i s no t cl ear i n w hat pla ces pu bl i c autho ri ti es m ay ban fi re ar m s a l tog et her wi th o ut s ho ul der i ng t he bu rd en s o f l i ti g at i o n. The noti on that ‘ se lf- defe nse has to ta ke pla ce wherev er [ a] pe r so n h appe ns t o b e, ’ a p p ear s to us t o po r te nd al l so rt s o f l i ti gat i on o v e r s c ho o l s , ai rpor ts, parks , publi c tho ro ughfa re s, an d vari ous a dd i ti onal g o ve r nm en t f ac i l i ti es ... . The who l e m at te rs tr i k es us as a va st te rra incognita th a t c ou rt s s h ou ld en te r on ly up on nece ssi ty and onl y then by sm al ldegr ee” (cit ati on om i tte d). Fa i r enough; but that “vas t te rra incognita ” has be en o pened to j ud i ci alexpl or ati on by Hellera nd M cD o n a ld
. There i s no tur ni ng ba ck by the l ower federa l cour ts, tho ugh w e nee d not s peculate o n the l i m i ts th atI l l i no i s m ayi n the i nt er es t o fpub l i c sa fety c ons ti tu
tio n al l y im p os e o n th e c ar ry in g of g u n s in p u b lic; it i s e nough thatthe l i m i ts i t has i m p osed go too f ar. The usual co nsequence o fr eve rs ing the di sm i ssa lo f a su i t ( he r e a pai ro fs ui ts ) i s to r emand th e ca se f o re vi den

ti ary pr o ce eding s pr epa r at o r y to the fi l i ngo fmot i o ns f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent a nd i ftho se m ot ions f ai lto an

### 20 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788

ev en tu al t ria l. B u t t h er e a re n o e vid en tia ry iss u es in th es e tw o case s. The co nsti tuti onal i ty ofthe chal l enged st atut o r y pr o vi si ons do es no t pr es en t f ac tu alque st i o ns for d et er m in at ion in a tria l. T h e e v i d e n c e m ar sh ale d in the Sk o ien c a s e wa s e v i de nc e o f“ l e g i s l a t i v e f a c t s , ” wh i ch i s to s ayf ac ts tha t be aro n the j us ti fi ca ti o n fo rl eg i sl at i o n, as dist i nct fro m f acts co ncer ni n g the co nd uct o fpart i es i n a p a r t i c ul a rc a s e ( “ a dj ud i c a t i v e f a c t s ” )
. S e e Fe d. R
. Ev i d. 201 (a); A dvis or y Com m i tte e Note t o Subdi vi si on ( a) o f 1972 Pro posed Rule [ of Evidence] 201. Only adj ud i cati ve f acts ar e dete rm i ned i n tr i al s, and onl y l egi sl ati ve f acts a r e r e l e v a n t t o th e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o fth e I l l i n o i s g u n l a w. The keyl egi slat ive f acts i n thi s ca se ar e the effects ofth e I l l i noi s l aw ; the sta te has f ai l ed to sho w that thos e e ffects ar e pos i ti ve. W e are d isin c lin ed to en ga ge inan ot h er rou n d of h ist or ical ana lysi s t o de term ine w he th er eighteen th -cent ury Am e r i c a u nd e r s t o o d the S e c o nd A m e nd men tt o i nc l ud e a r i g h tt o b e a rg u n s o u t s i d e th e h o me . T h e S u p r e me C ou rt h a s d e c id e d t h a t t h e a m e n d m en t con fers a r i ght t o beara rm s for se l f

- defe nse, wh i ch i s a s i m port ant o utsi de the hom e a s ins i de. The theo re ti cal and em pir i calev i dence ( w hi ch ov er al li s inconcl usi ve) i s co nsi ste nt with con c l ud i ng t ha t a r i g ht to c ar ry firea rm s in p u b lic m ay p ro m ot e s elf-d efe n se . I llin ois h ad to p ro vid e u s w ith m or e t h an m er ely a ra tio n al b as is f orbel i eving tha t i ts uniquel y s w ee p in g ban i s j usti fi ed b y an i ncre ase i n publi c sa fety
. I t has f ai l ed to m eet th i s b ur de n. Th e S up r e me Co ur t ’ s i nt e r pr e t a t i o n of the S eco nd A m endm ent there f or e co m pel s us to re ver se th e dec i si o ns i n the t wo ca ses b efo r e us a nd r emandN os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 

### 21 th em to their respec tive distr ic t c ou rts for th e ent ry o f de c l a r a t i o ns o f unc o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y a n d per m an en t i nj unc ti o ns. Nev er th el es s we o r dero urmand at e st ay ed f or18 0 days to al l ow the I l l i n ois l e g i s l a t u r e t o c r a f t a n e w g u n la w t h a t w ill im p os e re a s o n ab le lim ita tio n s, co n sis te n t w ith th e p u b lic sa fet y a n d th e Se c on d A m en d m en t a s in te rp re te d in thi s o pini on, o n the car ry i ng o fguns i n publi c.

R EV ER S ED AN D R EMAND ED , WI T H D I R EC T I ONS;

B UT M ANDA TE S TAYED FO R 180 DA YS .

W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e, di s s e n t i n g . T h e S u p r e me C our t’ s dec i si o ns i n Hellera nd M cD ona ldma de c l e ar that perso ns i n the sta te of I l l i noi s ( unle ss otherwise di squa l i fi ed) m us t be al l o wed to ha ve h an dgu ns i n thei r hom es f orse l f- defe nse. But thos e ca ses did notr eso l ve the quest i on in thi s ca se

— wh eth erthe S ec o nd Am en dm en t al so r equi r es a st at e to a l l o w per so ns to carry read y-to-use fi re a r m s in p ub li c for p oten tial selfdefense. The maj o r i tyo pi ni o n pr es en ts o ne r ea di ng of Hellera nd M cD onal d i n l i ght o fthe questi on pre sente d he re, and i ts re adingi s no t unreas on able. But I thi nk the i ssue prese nted is c los erthan the m aj or i ty m ak es i t o utt o b e. W he th erthe S ec o nd Am en dm en t

### 22 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 p ro te c ts a righ t to c ar ry re ad y-t o-u se fire ar m s i n p u b lic f orpote nti alse l f

- defe nse r equi re s a di ffer ent a nal ysi s fro m th atc o nduc te d b y the C o ur t i n Hellera nd M cDona ld. U lti m at el y , I woul d fi nd the resu lt here differ ent a s wel land w oul d affi rm the j ud gm ents of the di str i ct c ourt s. Heller ’ s ap p ro ac h s ug g es ts tha t j udg es a r e to e xa m i ne the hi sto ri calev i dence and then m ak e a deter m i nati on as to whethe rthe a ss er te d r i g ht, he r e th e r i g htt o carry re ady- to- use a rm s in publi c ( i n p laces o therthan th ose p erm itted by the I ll inois statu te) f or pote n t ialself

defe nse, i s withi n th e s cope o fthe Se cond A m endm ent. ( Heller has been cri ti ci zed forreas ons i ncl ud i ng tha t j ud ges ar e no t hi sto ri ans. ) In m aking thi s hi sto ri cali nquir y, and i n ass ess i ng wh etherthe ri ght was a gener al l y r eco gni ze d o ne , Ia g r ee wi ththe m aj o r i tytha t th e r el ev an t date i s 1 791, the date o fthe Se cond A m endm ent’ s r ati fi catio n . See Maj
. Op
. a t3
. B u tId o n o ta g r e e th a tth e S u p r e me Cou r t i n Heller rej ecte d the ar gum ent that the S tat e m akes h ere, no rdo Ithinkthe S ta te’ s ar g um en t effecti vel y a sks us t o re pud i ate Heller ’ s hi sto ri calanal ysi s. The hi st o r i ca li nqui r y he r e i s a ve r y di ffer en t on e. Hellerdi d no t as se ss whethe rthe r e was a pr e- ex i st i ng r i g h tt o c a r r y g u n s i n p u b l i c f o rs e l f

- d e fe n s e . B y a s k i ng us t o make tha t as se ss m en t, the S ta te i s no t as k i ng us t o r ej ec t th e Cou r t’ s hi st o r i ca la na l y si s i n Heller; ra ther, i t i s be i ng tru e to it . A s Ise e i t, the St ate em bra ces Heller ’s m et h od of an aly sis a n d a sk s u s t o c on d u c t it f orthe differ ent r i gh t th at i s be i ng as ser ted. Iam not the o nl y o ne to thi nk tha t Heller di d no t se ttle theN os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 

### 23 hi st o r i ca l i s s u e s . T h e S ec o nd Ci r cui t’ s r ec en t unanim ous deci si on uph old in g N ew Y or k’s “p ro p er ca use” pr er equi si te t o o btain i nga l i ce ns e to c ar r y a ha ndg un i n pub l i c r e c o g n i zed and di s c u s s e d t h e di ffer en t hi st o r ica li nqui r y tha t o cc ur s when th e ass er t e d r i g hti s t o p o s s e s s a h a nd g uni n pu b l i c. See Ka ch a lsky v . Co un ty o f Westc h e ster, 2012 W L 59075 02, at *6-7, *10-11 (2d Cir. N ov. 27, 2012). ( U nd er the N ew York l aw thatthe Se cond Circui t uphel d, “[ a] ge nera l i zed d esire to carry a con c ealed w eap on to p rotect on e’s p er so n an d p ro p er ty d oe s n otco n st itu te ‘p ro p er ca u se ,’ ” an d “[g] ood m oral ch aract er p lu s a sim p le desire t o c a r r y a we a po n i s n o te no ugh. ” Id. at* 3 ( i nter nalci tations an d qu otations om itted ))
. H e l ler tel l s us that “the Se cond A m endm ent was n ot i ntended t o l ay dow n a nov el p rin c ip le but ra ther codi fi ed a ri ght i nheri ted fro m ou r E n gl i sh an cest or s. ” Heller, 5 5 4 U. S
. a t5 9 9 ( i n t e r n a lqu o t at i o ns o mi t t e d )
. F o ro u rE n g l i s h a nc e s t o r s a ma n ’ s h o me w as hi s ca stl e, and so he had b road pow er s t o d efe n d h im se lf th er e. See 4 W illiam B lac ks to n e, C o m m enta ri e s on theLa ws of

Engl and223 (176 9 ). T h e f ocu s of Heller ’s hi s t o r i c a le xa mi na t i o n wa s o n whe the rth e S e c o nd Amen dme n ti n c l u d e d a n i n d i v i d u a lr i g h tt o b e a ra r ms orwh et h er thatr i ght was l i m i ted to m i l i ti a s er vi ce. Once the Heller maj o r i t y f o un d tha tthe S e c o nd Amen dm en t w as p e r s o n al, th e c on c lu sio n th at on e c ou ld p ossess r e a d y-to-use fi rearm s in the h om e for selfd efe n se th er e m ak es se n se in ligh t o f th e h om e-a s-c as tle hi sto ry .

### 24 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 It is les s c lea r to m e, h ow ev er , th at a w id ely u n d er st oo d ri gh t t o c ar ry rea d y-t o-u se arm s in pu bl i c f orpote ntial se l f

- defe nse e xi ste d at the ti m e o f th e fo u n d in g. C

f. Heller, 5 54 U. S
. at6 05 ( r ej ec tinga r g um en t by di ss en te r s an d s ta ting, “ Tha t si m pl y do es no t co m port w i th o ur l ongs tandi ng vi ew that the Bil lo fRi ghts codi f i ed vener abl e , wi de l y u nd e r s t o o d l ib e rt i es. ”)
. Inco n t r as t t o in sid e t h e h om e, w h er e o n e c ou ld larg ely do whathe w i sh ed, the r e was a l o nghi st o r y ofr egul at i ng ar m s i n pub l ic
. The 1 32 8 S ta tu te o fNor th ampto n, quo te d b y the maj o r i tyo n page 6, p r o vi ded i n r el ev an t par t that no m anc o ul d “ g o no rr i de ar m ed byni g ht norbyday, i n Fai rs , m ar ket s, nori n the p resence of th e Ju st ice s o r ot h er M in ist er s, n or in n o p ar t e lse w h er e.” 2 Edw

. I I I, c. 3 ( 1328 )
. I fthe w or ds ofa st atute ar e s up re m e, the w or ds ofthe St atute o fN or th am pton express l y prohibi t g oi ng o r ri ding w hi l e “ ar m ed, ” whether at n igh t or in th e d ay , w h eth er th e arm s a r e v i sib le orhi dd en. A nd the sta tute conta i ns no i ntent re quir em ent. So the St atute o f N ortham pton, byi ts ter m s, pro hibi ted go in g a rm ed in p u b lic. Thi s m at te r s be ca us e th e S ta tu te o fNor th ampto n a nd its p rin c ip l e s d id n otd isa p p ea r aft er its en ac tm en t in 1 3 2 8
. T h e l e a d i n gs c h o l a r s r e l i e d u p o n a tth e t i me ofo ur c ou ntry ’ s founding al so turned t o the S tatute of N ortha m p ton as they discu ssed c rim inal of

f e n s e s . M a s s a c h u s etts, N o r t h Ca r o l i n a , a n d Vir gi ni a incor pora ted the S tatute o fN or tham pton i n the ye ar s i m m edi at ely a fte rthe Co ns ti tu ti o n’ s ado pti o n. See P at ric k J. C h ar les , The F a ces of th e Second Am e ndmen t O utsid e the H o m e: H isto rica l Ve r s usN os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 

### 25 A histo rica l Sta nd a rds o f R e v i ew , 60 Cl ev. S t. L. Rev. 1, 31

- 32 ( 2012 )
. A l though the pl ai nti ff s s ugges t that l ate r gener ati ons did not vi ew the St atute of N or tham pton to meanwhati ts t er m s sa i d, whethe rtha t i s true is n otob vio u s. W illiam B l a c ks to n e, cit ed freq u en tly by the Hellermaj o r i ty, f o re xa m pl e, s um m ar i ze d the St at u te o fN o r t h a m p t o n a s h e e x p l a i n e d p u b lic w ro ngs. H e w ro te, “[ t] he offense of ri ding orgo i ng ar m ed w i th d anger ous o r unu sualweapons, i s a cr i m e a gainst th e publi c pea ce , b y t er r i fy i ngthe g o o d pe o pl e o fthe l and; a nd i s p a r t i c ul a r l y p r o hib i t e d b y the S t a t ute o fNor th ampto n, upo n p ain o ff o r fei tu r e o fthe ar m s, and i m pri sonm ent duri ng the ki n g’s pl eas ure: i n l i ke m an n eras , bythe l aw s o fS ol on, ev er y Athenia n w as fin ab le w h o w alk ed ab ou t th e city in arm ou r.” 4 B lac ks to n e, sup ra , 1 4 8 -49 ( intern al ci tation om itted ); s e eal s o E u ge n e V olo kh , The Fi rs t and Second A m endm ents , 10 9 Colum . L. Re v. S i deb ar9 7, 1 01 ( 20 09 ) ( r ec o g ni zing that Blac kst one sum m ar i zed the St atute o fN or tham pton inth is p as sa ge ). S o m e, l i k e th e pl aint i ff s, r ea d Bl ac k st o ne to m ea n th atthe St atute o f N or tham pton wa s un der sto od to cove r onl y th ose ci rcum sta nces w here the car ry i ng o f ar m s w as unu sual and there f or e ter ri fyi ng. Bu t t hat see m s to be a st ra i ned re adingo fBl acks tone ’ s words. The m or e naturalr ead i ng i s that Bl acks tone st ate s th atr i di ngo rg o i ngarm ed wi thda ng er o us wea po ns i s a n offense and i s a cr i m e a gainst the publ i c peace . H e then expl ai ns wh y th e o ffense ofr i ding or going ar m ed w i th danger ous weapons i s a cr i m e a gainst the publ i c peace

—because d oi ng so m ake s peo ple te rr i fi ed o r ne r vo us . Not ab l y , Bl a c k s t o n e co m par es g o i ng

### 26 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788

ar m ed w i th d anger ous weapons t o the m er e a ct o f w alk i ng ar ound a ci ty i n ar m or, wh i ch w as prohibi ted i n anci ent Gre ece. The co m p ar i son sugge sts thatj ust as se ein g a p er so n w alk in g a ro u n d a c i t y in ar m orwould cause o therci ti zens to be ne rv ous, r ega rdl ess ofany affi rm ati ve acti on, so would the re acti on be to s ee i ngano th ercar r y i ngdang er o us w ea po ns i n a po pulat ed are a. I t is tr ue as the m aj or i ty sta tes that SirJohn K night’s C a se, 8 7E n g . R e p . 7 5 ( K. B
. 1 6 8 6 ) , s t a t e d th a tth e me a ni ng of th e St at u te of N or th am p to n “w as to p u n ish p eo p le w ho go arm ed to ter ri fy the K i ng’ s s ubj ects
. ” But i t i m m ediat el y f ol l owed t h at s ta te m en t b y sa yin g t hat “[ i ] t i s l i kewis e a gr eato ffence at the c om m on l aw , as i fthe K i ng were not abl e o r w i l l i ng to pro tect hi s s ubj ects ; and ther ef or e thi s Act i s but an a ffi rm ance ofthat la w .” The case i s co nsi ste nt with the i dea that g o i nga r m ed i n the publ i c ar en a wi thda ng er o us w eapons w i thout governm ent per m i ssi on, byi ts nature , ter ri fi es the peo ple , wh etherthe ar m s ca n be see n or n ot
. SeeC h ar les , sup ra , a t 28 ( ex ami ni ngb ac k g r o und an d i m pl i ca ti o ns o fc as e an d e xpl aini ngtha t per so ns who wer e th e “ K i ng ’ s Offi ce r s an d M i ni st er s i n do i ng thei r Offi ce” w er e e xem pt fro m punishm ent under th e St at u te , w h ich ex p lain s Sir K n igh t’s ac q u itt al). Rober t Gar diner ’ s The C o m plea t C o nsta ble, w ri tte n f or seve nt e e nt h- a nd e i g ht e e nt h- c e nt ur y Br i ti sh const abl es, com port s with the und er sta nd i ng tha t th e St at u te of N or th am p to n ’s i n t en t w as to p ro h ibit the c ar ryi ng o fany w eapon that m i ght “ endangerN os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 

### 27

soc i etyam ong the c oncour se ofthe peopl e, ” Charl es, sup ra , at23, and that i t was an a ffi rm ati on o fgo ver nm ental pol i ce a uthor i ty, a s we l la s tha t“ da ng e r o us weapo ns ” i ncl ud ed guns, i d. at 23 -24
. The C o m pl e at C o nsta ble st at ed , w ith a sp ec ific re fer en c e t o “ gu n s,” th ata B riti shc o ns tabl e co ul d a r r es t upo n s ee i ng any per son ri de o r go arm ed offensi vel y, “in Fai rs o r M ar ket s o r el sewhere, byD ay orby N i ght, in affra y o fH er M aj est i es Subj ects , and Breac h ofthe Peace; o r w ear or ca rry an y D ag g e r s, G u n s, or P ist ols C h ar ge d .” R ob er t G ar d in er , Th e C om pleatCo nst able18

- 19 ( 3d ed. 1 70 7)
. The o nl y e xc ept i o ns were f o rpe r so ns s er ving H erM aj es ty, she r i ff s a nd the i roffi ce r s, a nd tho se “ pur su i ng H ue and Cry, i n Case of Fel ony, and o th er Offences aga i nst the Peac e. ” Id. at19
. Si r Ed w ar d Cok e al so disc ussed the Statute ofN or tham pton, and he inter prete d it t o al l ow per so ns to k ee p wea po ns i ns i de th e ho m e, expl aini ng that a m an’ s ho m e was his castl e. A s the m aj or i ty note s, Coke al so sta ted that one could notas sem bl e for ce t o go out i n publi c. B u t that doe s no t nec ess ar i l y m ean that p er sons w er e fre e t o car ryar m s forpote nti al perso nalse l f

- defe n se. Ind eed, i n Coke’ s e xplanat i on o f the Sta tu te , he r eco unted the ca se ofS i r Thom as Fi get t, wh o w as ar re ste d a fter he “w ent a rm ed und er his garm en ts, as w ellas i n th e pa lace, as b e fo re th e jus t i c e of th e k in gs be n c h .” E d w ar d C ok e, Ins t i t ut e s of t heLa ws of

Engl and 161- 62 ( 1797 )
. In hi s defense, Fi get t sa i d the r e “h ad be ende ba te ” be twe enhi m a nd anothe r earlier i n the w eek, “a nd ther ef or e for doubt ofdanger, and safegu ar d of hi s l i fe, he went so

### 28 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788

ar m ed. ” Id. at 162. N onethel ess , he w as or dered to forf ei t hi s ar m s an d s ufferi m pr i so nm en t atthe k i ng ’s p lea su re . Id. Ial so note thati n exam i ni ng the co ntou rs of the pr oposed r i ght, the m ajor i ty l oo ks to the per specti ve of an Ohio fr on tie rs m an . B u t it seem s that when ev alua tingthe ri g ht s o r i g i na l l y e m bo di ed i n the Se c on d A m en d m en t, loo kin g t o th e m ar gin s s h ou ld n otbe th e in q u iry
. C f Heller, 55 4 U.S
. at60 5
. W e hav e a l r e a d y o b s e r v e d th a tth e r e we r e a numb e ro fl a ws i n ourc o un t r y a r o un d the t i me o fthe f o un di ngtha t l i m i ted the di schar ge offirea rm s in publi c ci ti es. Se eEze l l v. Ci ty of

Chi cago , 65 1 F
. 3d 684, 70 5 ( 7th Cir
. 20 11) ( “ T h e C i t y p o i n t s t o a n u mb e ro f f o u n d i n g - e r a , a n t e b e l l u m, a n d R e c o n s t r u c t i o n s t a t e a n d l o c a l l a w s th atl i m i te d di sc ha r g e o ffi r ea r m s i n urba n environm ents. ”) ; id. at 70 5-0 6 & n n .13 -14 ; i d. at 71 3-1 4 (R ov n er , J. , concurr i ng) ( obs er ving that “ none o fthe 18th and 19th c en tu ry j u ris d ict ion s c ite d by th e C ity
. . . w er e a p p ar en tly concerned that banni ng o r l i m i ti ng the di schar ge offi re ar m s withi n ci ty l i m i ts w oul d ser i ously i m pinge th e rig h ts of gu n ow n er s” an d th atso m e o ft h e e ar ly l aw s’ co ncer n w i th fi re suppressi on r efl ecte d that “publi c sa fet y w as a par am ount va l ue to o ur a ncestor s” that som eti m es tr um ped a r i ght t o disc harg e a fi re ar m i n a par ti c ula r pla ce)
. S o w hi l e there ar e a var i etyo f o th er so urces and author i ti es, the ones I have d isc u sse d sugges t that there was not a cl ear hi st o r i ca lc o ns en su s th atpe r so ns c o ul d c ar r y g uns inp u b lic for se lf-d efe n se . Se e al so K ac hal s ky, 20 12 W L 59075 02, at* 6 ( sta ti ng tha t unl i ke the b anN os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 

### 29

o n h an dgu ns i n the ho m e ati ss ue i n Heller, “[h]i story an d tra di ti o n do no t spe akwi tho ne v o i ce ” r eg ar di ng sco pe of rig h t to bearar m s in publi c and that “[ w ] hat hi sto rydem onst ra tes i s that s tat es often d i s a g r e e d a s t o th e s c o p e o fth e r i g h t to b e a ra r ms [i n p ub li c]”). Iwil lpau se h ere t o sta te that Iam notco nvi nced that the i m pli cati on o fthe Helleran d M cD ona ldde ci si o ns i s that the S eco nd A m endm ent r i ght t o have re ady- to- use f i r e a r ms f o rp o t e n t i a ls e l f

- d e fe n s e e x t e n d s b e y o nd the hom e. Th at th e Se c on d A m en d m en t speaks o fthe “ ri ght o fthe p e o pl e t o k e e p a nd bear ar m s” (em p ha sis add ed ) d oes not to m e im p ly a ri gh t to carry a l o a d e d g u n o u t s i d e t h e h om e. H eller its elf dem onst ra tes thi s. The Courti nter prete d “bear ” t o m ean to “ ca r r y ” o rt o “ wea r, b ea r, o r ca r r y, ” upo n o ne ’ s per so n, for t h e p u rp os e o f be in g a rm ed an d rea d y in case o fco nfl i c t. H e ller, 55 4 U.S
. at58 4. A nd we know that Hellerco ntem pla ted thata gun m igh t onl y b e ca rr i ed inth e h om e b ec au se it ord er ed th e D ist ric t o f C olu m b ia to perm i t Hell erto do precis ely that : i t di re cted that unle ss H el l erwas othe rwis e di squal i fi ed, the Dist ri ct m us t a l l o w hi m “ to r eg i st er hi s ha ndg un a nd mus ti s s ue h i m a l i cense t o c ar ryi ti n th eh o me . ” Id. at 635 (em p h as is ad d ed ). M r. H elle r d id n ot w an t sim p ly “t o k e e p ” a gu n in h is c los et . H e w an te d to be ab le

“ t o be a r ” i ti n c a s e o fs e l f

- d e fe n s e , a n d th e S u p r e me Co ur ts a i d h e c o ul d. W e hav e w arn ed agains t “treat[ing] Hellera s co nt aini ng br o ade rho l di ng s t han the Co ur t se t o utt o e st ab l i sh :

### 30 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 that the S eco nd A m endm ent c re ate s ind i vi du alr i ghts, o n e o fw h i c h i s k e e p i ngo pe r ab l e h a n d gu n s a th o me f orse l f

- defe nse. . . . J ud i ci alo pini ons m ust no t be confus e d wi th s t a t ut e s , a nd g e ne r a le xp r e s s i o ns must b e re ad in lig h t of th e s u bj ec t u n d er co n sid er at ion .” See U nited Sta t e s v. Sk o ien , 61 4 F
. 3d 638, 64 0 ( 7th C ir. 20 10 ) ( e n ba n c ). Th e Su p re m e C ou rtm ad e c lea r in Hellera nd M cD ona ld that i ts hol dings only ap p l i ed to h an d gu n s in th e ho m e fo r s e lf-d efe n se . See, e.g., id .; He l ler, 5 54 U
. S. at63 5 ( “A nd wh ate verel se i t l eave s to fu tu re ev alu at ion, i t s u re ly ele va te s a b ov e a ll ot h er int er es ts th e rig h t of law -ab id in g, re sp on sib le citizens to u se arm s i n d efense of he arth and hom e.”)
. The C ou rt ’ s l anguage m ust be r ead i n that l i ght. The pla i nti ff s point, f orexam ple , to Heller ’ s st at ement t h a t t h e ope rative c lause o f t h e S e c o n d A m endm e nt g ua r a nt e e s “ t he i nd i v i du a l r i g htto p os se ss an d ca rry w ea p on s in ca se of co n fro n ta t ion .” 554 U
. S. at59 2. B ut Heller m ak es th is s ta te m en t in the por ti on o fi ts opi ni on s up port i ng the co nclusi on that the S eco nd A m endm ent incl ud ed a per sonalr i ght, as co m p ar ed to on e s ole ly re lat ed t o t h e m ilitia

. Seeid
. at 592- 95. The pl ai ntiffs a l so poi nt o ut that Heller sta ted that the need f or sel f

- defe nse i s “m os t a c ute” inth e h om e, w h ich th ey arg u e i m p l i e s th at th er e is a S eco nd A m endm ent r i ght t o posse ss re ady- to- use fire ar m s in p lac es ou ts id e t h e h om e. See i d. a t 62 8. But th e Cou r t m ade th i s co m m en t i n the c o nt ex t o fi ts c o nc l usi on that the Di str i ct o fCol um bi a handgun b an appli ed i n the ho m e; the f ac t th atthe ne ed was a cute i n the ho m e emphas i ze d tha t th e f at alfl aw i n the ha ndg un b a n w a s th a ti ta p p l i e d i n th e h o me . Se ei d. at62 8- 30.N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 

### 31 By al lthi s Ido notm ean t o su gg es t that hi sto ri cal evid en ce de fi ni ti ve l y de m o ns tr at es the r e was no t a r i g ht t o c a r r y a r ms i n p u b l i c f o r se l f

- d e fe n s e a tth e t i me ofthe f ounding. The pl ai nti ff s point to o therautho ri ti es that they m ai ntai n re vealthe opposite
. A t be st, th e h ist or y m igh t b e a m b igu ou s a s t o w h e t h er th er e is a r i ght t o car ryload ed fi re ar m s forpote nti alse l f

- defe nse ou ts id e t h e h om e. B u t if th at is th e c as e, th en it do e s no tse e m the r e was “a ve ne r ab l e , wi de l y u nd e r s t o o d” r i g htt o do s o . Tha t m ayw el lmeantha t th e r i g ht th e p lai nt i ff s se ekhe r e i s o ut si de th e sc o pe o fthe S ec o nd A m e n d m en t. Pe rha p s un d er H eller ’ s rat ion ale th atthe S ec o nd A m en dm en t co di fi ed a pr ee xi st i ng right, w ith history no t seem ing to c learl y s up p ort a general l y r eco gni zed r i ght, the anal ysi s e nd s r i ght he re .
II. W e sa i d i n E zell th at“ i fthe hi st o r i ca le vi den ce i s i nc o ncl usi ve orsugg est s that the r egul ate d activ ity i s notcat ego ri cal l y unprot ecte d

— th enthe r e m us t be a s ec o nd inq ui r y i nt o th e st r en g th o f th e govern m en t’s j usti fi cati on f orr est ri cti ng o r re gul ating the ex erci se of Se c on d A m en d m en t r i g h ts .” 65 1 F .3d at70 3. In doi ng so , we stat ed that “the rig or o fthi s j ud i ci al r ev iew wi l lde pen d o n h o w cl o se the l aw c o m es t o the cor e o fthe Se cond A m endm ent r i ght a nd the seve ri ty ofthe l aw ’ s bur den on t h e r i ght. ” Id. A ny r i ght t o c ar ry firea rm s in p u b lic for p ot en tia l se lf-d e fen se , i f the r e i s one, i s n o ta tthe “ c o r e ” o fthe S e c o nd Amen dm ent. S e eKa c h al s ky , 20 12 W L 59 07 50 2, at *9; U nited Sta tes v. M arzza re ll a , 614 F.3d 85, 92 ( 3d Cir. 2010).

### 32 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 The S upr eme Co ur t m ade c l ea ri n Hellertha t “n o th i ng i n [ i t s ] o pi ni o n s ho ul d b e t a k e n t o c a s tdo ub to n l o ng s t a nd

i ng pro h ibiti ons on the poss ess i on o ffi re ar m s by fel o ns a nd the m en ta l l y i l l, o rl aws f o rbi ddi ngthe c ar r y i ng o ffi r ea r m s i n s en si ti ve pl ac es suc h as sch o o l s an d g o ve r nm en t b u i ld in gs . . . .” 55 4 U .S. at 6 26
. M cD ona ld mad e s ur e t o “ r e pe a ttho s e a s s ur a nc es. ” M cD ona ld, 130 S. Ct. a t 30 47
. Tha t a l eg i sl atur e ca n fo rbi d the c ar r y i ng offi re ar m s in sc h ool s a nd go ver nm ent b uil dings m eans that any r i ght t o posse ss a gun fo r sel f

- defe nse outsi de the hom e i s no t abso l ute, and i t i s no t abso l ute b y t h e Su p re m e C ou rt ’s o w n te rm s. In d ee d , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r tw o u l d d e e m itp re su m p tiv ely p e r mi s s ib l e t o o u t r i g h tf o rb i d th e c a r r y i n go ffi r e a r ms in certain p ub li c p laces, bu t th at d oes not m ean th at a selfde fe n s e n e e d n e v e r a r i s e s i n th o s e p l ac es . The te ac h er be in g s ta lke d by h er ex -h u sb an d is s u sc ep tib le atwor k, a nd in h ers ch o o lpa r k i ng lot, a nd o n the sch ool p laygrou n d , to som eon e inten t on h arm ing her. So wh y would the S uprem e Cou rt r eassure us that a l egi sl atur e ca n ban guns i n cer tain pla ces? Itm ust be out ofa com m on- sense r eco gni ti on o fthe ri sks that ar ise w h en gu n s a re aro u n d

. A ny r i ght to car rylo aded fi re ar m s outsi de the hom e for self- d efense i s, un d er Heller ’s ow n ter m s, susce ptibl e t o a l egi sl ati ve deter m i nati on that fi re ar m s s houl d not b e a l l o we d i n c e r t a i n p u b l i c p l a c e s . T h e S u p r e me Cou r tt e l l s u s tha ta s t a t e c a n f o rb i d gun s i n s c hool s. Th a tp r o b ab l y me a ns i tc a n f o rb i d gun s n o tj us ti ns i de th e sc ho o lb ui l di ng, b uta l so i n the pl ay g r o und a ndN os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 

### 33 p ar kin g lotan d gra ss y a re a o n its p r op er ty to o. A n d if a s tat e ca n ban guns on s choolpro perty, per haps i t can b an th em w ith ina c e r t ain d ist an c e o f a sc h oo l too

. C f. 18 U .S.C
. § 922( q)( 2) ( A )
. The S up re m e Cour t a l so tel l s us that a sta te can ba n guns in go ver nm ent b uil dings

. Th e l i s to fs uc h b ui l di ngs w ou l d s e e m t o i nc l ud e post offi ces, co urtho uses, l ibra ri es, Departm ent o fM oto r V eh icl e facil iti es, city halls, and m ore. A nd the legisl atu re can b a n fi r e a r ms i n o the r “ s e ns i t i v e pl a c e s ” to o. S o m ay b e in a p lac e o f w or sh ip
. Se eGe orgi aCar ry.O rg v . G eorgi a , 6 8 7F
. 3 d 1 2 4 4 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 1 2 ) ( u p h o l d i ng ban o n fi re ar m s in pla ces of w or sh i p). M aybe to o on th e g ro u n d s o f a p u b lic u n ive rs ity
. SeeD iG iacint o v. R ec tor & Visi tors of GeorgeM ason U niv
. , 7 04 S
. E.2 d 365 ( Va. 20 11) ( up hol ding re gul ati on pro hibi ti ng poss ession of gun s in un iversity f acili ties and at cam p us even ts). Or i n a n a i r po r t, o r n ea ra po l l i ngpl ac e, o ri n a b ar . And if th e la tt er is tr u e t h e n p er h ap s a legis lat u re co u ld b a n l o a de d fi r e a r ms any pl a c e wh e r e a l c o ho li s s o l d, so i n r es ta u ra n ts an d co n ve n ien c e s to re s a s w ell. The r es ul tingpa tc hw o r ko fpl ac es wher e l o ade d g uns co uld a nd c o ul d no t be c ar r i ed i s no t o nl y o dd bu t al so coul d not guarantee m eani ngful sel f

- defe nse, wh i ch sugge sts thatthe const i tuti onalr i ght to car ryr eady- to- use fire ar m s in p u b lic for se lf-d efe n se m ay w ell n otex ist
. I t i s di ffi cul t t o m ak e sense o fwh at Hellermean s f o rc ar r y i ngg uns i n pub l i c f o ra no th ern otab l e r ea so n. I m m ed i ate l y b ef or e the se ntence gi vi ng a presum pti on o f law fu ln es s t o b an s o n g u n s f o r felon s a n d th e like , Heller st at es : “ Li k e m o str i g ht s, the r i g ht se cur ed bythe S ec o nd A m endm ent i s no t unl i m i ted. Fr om Bl ack st one thro ugh

### 34 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 th e 1 9t h -c en tu ry ca se s, co m m en ta to rs a n d c ou rt s ro u tin ely ex p lai ne d tha t the ri gh t w as no t a ri gh t to keep and carry any weapon w hatso eve r i n any m anner w hatso eve r and fo r w h at ev er p u rp os e. Forexam pl e, them ajo rity of the19 t hce nt ury co ur t s t o co ns i de r t he q ue s t i on he l d thatprohi b i t i ons on ca r ryi ng co nc e al e d we apons w erel awfu l un de rtheSe co nd A m end m ent o r state an a lo gu es. ” 5 54 U .S
. a t 6 26 (em p h as is add ed and i nter nalci tat i ons om i tte d). The i m plic ati on o f the Su pr e me Co ur t ’ s s t a t e men two ul d s e e m t o b e tha t co nc ea l ed ca r r y i s no t wi th i n the s co pe o fthe S ec o nd A m en d m en t (or at th e least that tha t i s the p resu m p tion). See, e.g., N els on L u n d , The S eco nd A m end m ent, H el l er, a nd O r igi na list Jurisp rud ence, 5 6 UCL A L. R e v . 1 3 4 3 , 1 359 ( 2009 ) ( “This a p pears to be an endor sem ent o fye t an oth er exc ep tion to the cons titution al r ig ht. ”); H ight owerv. Ci ty of Bos t on , 693 F.3 d 6 1 , 73 (1st Cir. 2012 ) ( i nter preting thi s l anguage to m ean that l aw s pro hibitin g t h e c arrying of con cealed w eap ons are an exam p le ofpres um p tiv e ly law ful restri ctions ); Eu g e ne Vol okh, Im pl e m e nt i ng t heRightt o Ke ep an d BearAr m s f

orSe l f

- D e f e ns e : An Analyt i ca l Fram ew o rk an d a Re s e ar ch Age nda , 56 U C L A L
. Rev
. 1443, 1523-24 (2009). Tha t woul d no t be th e fi r st ti m e th e S upr em e C ou rt h ad m ad e s u c h a st at em en t. SeeRo be rtson v. Ba ldwin , 165 U
. S. 275, 28 1- 82 ( 1897 ) ( sta ti ng i n dict a that Se cond A m endm ent r i ght “ i s no t infringed by l aw s pro hibiti ng the ca rrying of con cealed w eap ons ”). I fc a r r y i ngc o nc e a l e d we a po ns i s o ut s i de the s c o pe of th e Se c on d A m en d m en t, th e c on se q u en c e w ou ld be s i gni fica nt. “‘ I n the ni netee nth centur y, co nceal ed c a r r y wa s o ft e n c o n s i d e r e d o u t s i d e th e s c o p e o ft heN os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 

### 35 ri ght t o bearar m s. Today, i t i s the m ostco m m on way i n w hi ch p eo p le ex er ci se thei r ri ght t o bear ar m s.’ ” Jo se p h B loc h er , The Righ tNott o Ke ep orBe ar A r ms , 6 4 St an . L . R ev . 1 , 4 5 (2 01 2) (q u ot in g D av id B . K op el, The Righ tt o Ar m s i n theLi vi ng Cons t i t ut i on , 20 10 Cardozo L. Rev. 99 , 13 6 (20 10 )). An d, as the M o o re pla i nti ff s a ck no wl e dg e i n the i rb r i e f, “ t o da y, o pe nly c a r r yi ngh a nd

g un s ma y a l a r m i nd i v i du a l s u na c c us t o med t o fi r ear m s. ” T h e im pli cati on, as expl ai ned by Nels on L un d ( au th or ofthe Sec ond A m en d m e n t Foun d ation’s a m i cu s cu ria e br i efi n Helleri n s uppo r t o fM r . Hel ler) : “I n so m e Am er i can j uri sdic ti ons to d ay, f orexam ple , o pen l y c ar r y i nga fi r ea r m m i g htpl au sibl y b e th o ug ht to vi ol ate the an c ien t c om m on l aw pro hi bi ti on aga i nst ‘ ter ri fyi ng the go od peopl e o fthe l and’ by going ab out w i th danger ous a nd unusual w eapons. I fco urts wer e to co ncl ud e that o pen car ryvi ol ate s th is com m on law p ro h ibit ion (an d th u s is n o t w ith in th e pr e e x is t in gri g h tp r o t e c t e d b y th e Se c ond A m en d m en t), a fter Hellerhas d ecreed that ban s on con cealed carry ar e perse val i d, the c onst i tuti onalr i ght t o bear ar m s w ou ld effe c tiv ely ce as e t o e x ist .” L u n d , sup ra , at13 61- 62
. ( To b e cl ea r, i f th er e i s a S ec o nd Am en dm en t r i g ht to carry arm s out side the h om e for p oten tial selfd efe n se in Illin ois as m y c olle ag u es h av e fo u n d , I am no t su g g es ting th at I l l i no i s sh o ul d no t i m pl ement c on c ea led ca rry law s.) I fth e r e i s a n y r i g h tt o c a r r y r e a d y - t o - u s e fi r e a r ms am ong the pu bl i c fo r potenti a l s e l f

- defe nse, th e p lain tiffs con te n d th e Illino is s ta tu te s m u st be u n c on st ituti on al b ecause thei r ban i s f ar - re achi ng. But I see the questi on as som ew hat mo r e n ua nc e d.

### 36 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 Pro tect i ng the sa fetyo fi ts ci ti zens i s unquesti onabl y a s i g n i f i c a n t st ate i nter est
. U nited Sta t e s v. Sal e r no, 48 1 U .S. 73 9, 74 8 (1 98 7); Kel l ey v . Johns on , 42 5 U
. S. 23 8, 24 7 ( 1976 )
. I l l i noi s cho se to enact the s tatutes h er e o u t o fc o n c er n for th e s afe ty of its cit ize n s. See P eople v. M arin , 795 N
. E
. 2d 953, 959-62 ( I ll

. A p p . Ct
. 2003). Give n the Sta te’ s obvi ous i nter estin regula ti ng the sa fety of its citizens, th e qu estion i s w ho det erm ines th e con tou rs ofany ri ght to car ry re ady- to- use fi re ar m s forse l f

- defe nse i n pub l i c wh e n the y a r e u ns e t t l e d a s a ma t ter o f b o t h o r i ginal h istory an d po l i c y . The Hellermaj o r i tyc o nc l ude d th at“ en sh r i ne m en t o fc o ns ti tu
tional ri gh ts ne cess aril y takes ce rtain p oli cy ch oices off the t abl e . . . i nc l ud [ i ng ] the ab s o l ut e p r o hib i t i o n o fh a nd

gu ns hel d and used fo r sel f

- defe nse in the h om e.” 554 U
. S. at 636. Bu t “as w e m ove ou tsid e the hom e, fi rearm rig h ts h av e a lw ay s b e e n m or e lim ite d , bec au se p u b lic safety interest s often ou tw eigh ind ivi d ua l interest s in self

defe nse. ” U nited S ta tes v. M a scia nd ro , 63 8 F
. 3d 458, 47 0 (4t h C ir. 20 11 ). The Sup r e me C o u r t h a s t o l d u s t h a t we m u s t “ a c c o r d s u b s t a n t i a l d e f e r e n c e t o t h e pr e di c t i v e j ud g men t s o f[ the l e g i s l atur e]
. ” T u rner Broad
. S ys. , Inc
. v . F
. C. C. , 520 U .S. 18 0, 19 5 (1 99 7). “In th e c on t e x t o f firea rm reg u lat ion, th e le gis lat u re is

‘ f arbet terequi pp ed than the j ud i ci ar y’ to m ake s e n s i t i v e p o l i c y j u d g me n t s ( wi th i n c o n s t i t u t i o n a ll i mi t s ) c o n c e r n i n gth e d a n g e r s i n c a r r y i n gfi r e a r ms an d the m anner to com bat thos e r i sks

. ” Ka c h a l s ky , 2012 W L 59075 02, at* 12. The l egis l atur e know s the st ati s-N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 

### 37

Sta te cou rts tha t ha v e ad d ressed a state co nstitu tion al rig ht to 1 b ear arm s hav e u sed a “ rea son ab le reg u lation ” stan d ard , a test thati s m or e defer en t i al thanin t er m edi at e s c ru t i ny but that, unli ke the int erest -balanci ng tes t proposed in J usti ce B rey er’s Hel l erd issent, d o e s no t pe rm it states to p ro hib it all f i r ea rm o w n er sh ip
. S ee, e.g ., Sta te v. H am d an , 6 6 5 N. W
. 2 d 785, 798-8 0 1 ( W is
. 2003) ; Ad am W inkle r, Sc r ut i niz i ng t heSe co nd A me ndme nt, 1 05 M i c h. L. Rev. 68 3, 68 6- 87( 20 07 ) ( di s c us s i ng
“ h u n d re d s” o f sta te co u rt o p in io n s u sin g th is t es t). ti cs a nd i s in a f arbet terpos itio n t han w e a re to w e igh their i m p ort. I ll inois reasona bly w an ts to try to red uc e th e incid en ce of d eath a n d i njury by fi re ar m s, bo th tho se w hi ch co m e from affi rm ati ve acts ofvi ole n c e and al so the m any deaths and i nj uri es that o cc ura cc i den ta l l y, a nd d o i ngs o b y t ak i ngthe m o ffthe str eet s i s a l egi sl at i ve j ud gm ent s ubstanti al l y r el ate d to its i m p ortan t govern m en tal obj ective of redu cing inj ury and death by fi re ar m s. 1 It i s com m on sense , as the m aj or i ty re cogni zes , that a g uni s da ng e r o us to m o r e p e o pl e wh e n c a r r i e d o ut s i de th e h om e. SeeM aj
. Op
. a t 8 . W he n fir earm s are car ri ed outs i de ofthe hom e, the safetyo fa bro ader ra nge o fci ti zens i s a t i ssue. Th e ris k ofbeing i nj ured o r ki l l ed now exte n d s t o str anger s , l a w en f o r ce m en t per so nn el, a nd o th erpr i va te c i ti ze ns w h o happ en to be i n the ar ea . C f. D av id H em enw ay & Debor ah A zr ael, TheRe l at i veFrequency of O f f e ns i vean d Def

e ns i veGun Us e s : R esults f r om a Nat i onal Sur vey , 1 5 Vi o l en ce & Vi ct i m s 25 7, 2 71 ( 20 00 ) ( fi ndi ng th atg uns a r e used “ far mor e o fte n t o k i l la nd wou nd

### 38 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 inn ocen t victim s tha n to kill a n d w ou nd crim inals”). I nd e e d, the I l l i no i s l e g i s l a t ur e wa s n o tj us tc o nc e r ned w i th “cr i m e r ate s” and “m urder ra tes ” when itpasse d th e la w . C

f. M aj
. Op. a t 8. I t al so s o ug ht to “ pr ev en t si t ua t i o ns wh e r e n o c r i mi na li nt e nte xi s t e d, b utc r i m i nal conduct r esu lted d espi te the l ack ofi ntent, e. g. , acc i dents w i th l oaded guns o n public str eet s o r the e scal ati on o fmin o rpub l i c al te r ca ti o ns i nt o gun b att l es o r. . . the danger ofa pol i ce o fficer s toppi ng a carwith a l oaded w eapon o n the passenge r sea t. ” SeeM arin , 795 N
. E.2 d at 962. The dangero fsuch s i tuati ons i ncre ase s if guns m ay b e c ar rie d ou ts id e t h e h om e. That the perc en tag e o fr epor ted acc i dentalgun- re l ate d deaths i s lo w eras com pared to s uic i de ( w hi ch acco unts f or th e m aj ority off ir earm s-rel ated de ath s) and m urd er, see R ob er t A
. H ah n e t a l ., Fi r e ar m s La ws and t heRe duc t i on o f Vio lenc e: A Sy stem a tic R eview , 28 A m . J
. Pre ve n tive M ed
. 4 0 , 4 0 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , do es no tma k e the I l l i no i s l a w i nv a l i d. Fi rs t, i n thos e s tat i sti cs, “[ u]ni ntenti onalfi re ar m - re l ate d death s ap p ea r to b e su b stanti al l y underco unted ( i
. e. , m i scl ass i fi ed as du e t o an othe r cause) , ” id. at4 7, a nd inan y e ve n t t h e St at e h as a sig n ifica n t in te re st in r edu cingthe r i skof ac ci den ta lfi r ea r m s- r el at ed dea th s as wel la s ac ci den ta li nj ur i es . The m aj o r i tys ay s th e l aw can n ot be j usti fi ed on the gr ound that i t r educes th e a c c i d e n t a ld e a th ra t e u n l e s s i tc o u l d b e s h o wn that al l owing guns to be c arri ed i n publi c ca uses gu n ow n er sh ip to inc re as e. SeeM aj
. Op. a t 13
. But w h et h er gu n ow n er sh ip inc re as es is n otth e q u es tio n . See i d. at10

- 11. I t i s no t the num bero fguns own ed that matt e r s b utwh e r e the g un s a r e c a r r i e d. I l l i no i s a l r e a dyN os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 

### 39 al l ows peopl e t o own and have guns in thei r hom es; h ow ever, theycannotcar rythem i n publi c. The I l l i nois l egi sl atur e r eas onabl y c oncl ud ed that i f peopl e ar e a l l owed to ca rry gu n s in p u b lic, th e n u m b er of g u n s c a rrie d in p ub li c w il l increas e, an d the risk offirearm s-rel ated i njury or d ea th in p u b l i c w i l l inc re as e a s w ell. C f. M arin , 79 5 N .E .2d at95 9-6 2. A nd i t i s a l so com m on s ense that the dange r i s a gr eat o n e; fire ar m s a re leth al. C f. Sko ien , 61 4 F
. 3d at 642 ( “ g un s a r e ab o utfi v e t i mes mo r e de a dl y tha n k ni ves, g i v e n tha t a n a t t a c k wi th s o me k i nd o f we a po n has o cc u rre d ”) (c itin g F ra n klin E . Zim rin g, Fir e a rm s, Vio lenc e, and t hePot e nt i al Im pac tof Fi r e ar m s Cont r ol , 3 2 J
. L. Med

. & E th ics 34 (20 0 4 ) )
. Fo r th at rea so n to o th e fo c u s s im p ly on cr im e ra te s m iss e s th e m ar k. A s P h ilip J. C oo k, a Du ke U ni ver si ty profess or cit ed twice by the m aj or i ty, pu t i t: “M y r ese ar ch ov er35 ye ar s dem onst ra tes that the e ffec t o fg un a va i l ab i l i tyi s no t to i nc r ea se the crim e rate bu t to inten sify th e crim e tha t exists an d conv ert as sa u lts int o m u rd er s.” E th an B ro n n er , O the rS t a tes, and O t he rTimes, Would H a ve Pos e d Obs t ac l e s f or Gunm an , N
. Y. Ti m es, J uly25 , 20 12, atA 12. The m aj or i ty’ s r esponse t o th e f act that guns ar e a p ot en tia l leth al d an ge r to m or e p e o p l e w h en ca rrie d in pu bl i c se em s t o be t o saythatkno w i ng pote nti al vi cti m s co uld be ar m ed m ay have a dete rr ent e ffect o rma k e c r i mi na l s t i mi d. See M aj
. Op. at 8 , 1 3. Yet eve n an ar ti cl e r el i ed upon by the m aj or i ty ca u ti ons that the e ffect on cr i m i nal s m ay w ellbe m o regun use : “Tw othi rds o fpri sone rs i ncarc er ated fo r gun offenses r epor ted

### 40 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 that the c hance o fr unning int o an ar m ed vi cti m was ver y o r s o mewh a t i mpo r t a nt i n the i r o wn c ho i c e t o us e a gun. Curre ntl y, cr i m i nal s use guns in o nl y about 25 perce nt of noncom m er ci alr obbe ri es and 5 per cent of ass aul ts. I fi ncre ase d gun car ry i ng a m ong potenti al v i c t i ms c a u s e s c r i mi n a l s t o c a r r y g u n s mo r e o ft e n th e mselves, orbecom e qu icker to use gu ns to avert arm ed self

d e fe n s e , th e e n d r e s u l tc o u l d b e th a ts t r e e tc r i me beco m es m or e l ethal

. ” Phi l i p J
. Cook, J ens Ludw i g & A d am M . Sam ah a, G un C o ntro l A f t e r H el l er : Th re ats a n d S i d e s h o ws f

r o m a S o c i a l We l

f a r ePe rs p e c t i ve, 5 6 UCL A L . Re v. 10 41 , 108 1 (2 00 9). On the o th ers i de o fthe l etha lda ng ert o the S ta te ’ s ci ti ze ns i s th e as se r te d i nt er es t i n ca r rying g uns f orse l f

- defe nse, ye t e ven the m aj ority does not conte nd thatcar ry i ng guns i n publi c has been shown to be a n effecti ve f or m o fself-defe nse. Fo r exam ple , as th e m ajorit y a c kn ow led ge s, U n ive rs ity of P en n sy lva n ia re sea rche rs f ound that a ssa ult v ictim s a re m or e l i kel y t o b e a rm ed th an th e re st of th e p op u lat ion
. See M aj
. Op. at 12 -13 (cit in g C h ar les C . B ra n as etal., Inves t igat i ng t he Link B et w ee n Gun Po ss es si on and Gun A ss ault, 9 9 A m . J
. o fP u b

. H e a l th 2 0 3 4 , 2 0 3 7( 2 0 0 9 ) )
. T h e r e s e a r c h e r s e x a mi ned shoot i ngs in Phil adel phia and co ncl ud ed that “gun po ss es si o n b y urba n a dul ts was a ss o ci at ed wi tha sig n ifica n tly inc re as ed risk of be in g s h otin a n as sa u lt,” i d. , w h ich su gg es ts , i f an yt h in g, th at c a r ry in g a gu n is not effe cti ve sel f

- defe nse. The r ese ar cher s pos i ted that possibl e r eason s for the i r fi nd i ngs incl ud ed that a gun m ay f al sel y e m pow eri ts posse sso r to o ver re act, that perso ns with gun s m ay increas e the r i sk ofhar m byN os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 

### 41

The m aj o rity ci tes M ood y and M arvell ’ s 2008 pap er 2 suggest ing that Ayres and D on o h ue should have ext ended the ir 200 3 an aly sis by on e m or e y ear . B u t exten d ing their data is j ust w hat Ayres and D onohu e did in theirM ay 2009 piece , M o re G u n s, Less C ri m e Fail s A gain: Th e Latest Evide nce f

ro m 1977- 2006
. An d aft er e xt ending thei r s tate p anel dat a by s i x addi t i ona l ye ar s , the y a gain conc l uded that“the b e s te v i de n c e t o d a t e sugge s t s th a t[ r i g h t
- t o - c a r r y ] l a ws at the v er y least i n crease aggrav ated as saul t. ” Id. at 231. T h e y a l so th o r o u g h l y r e sp o n d e d to M o o d y a n d M a r v e l l ’s c ri t i c i s m thatthe i r i ni t i al 20 03 an al ys i s e val uated the t re nd f or five y ear s rath er th an six, expl ai nin g in p art: “W e w ou ld ha v e tho u g ht, tho u g h, th at o ne w ou ld w an t to be very cauti ous i n evaluati ng trends bey o n d fi ve years w he n 1 4 o f the 2 4 states h av e no p ost-p assag e d ata be yo nd three years . ” Id
. a t2 1 8

- 1 9
. Th e y a l s o c r i t i c i z e d Moo dy a n d Ma r v e l l ’ s c o n c l u s i o n s a n d de mon s t r a t e d th a tth e t wo had i nc or re c t l y gr aphe d the es t i m at es f ro m Donohue ’ s t abl e and 

### (continued...) en te rin g d an ge ro u s e n vir on m en ts th a t t h ey n or m ally w oul d have a voi ded , and that p er sons bringi ng guns to an othe rwis e gun-free c onfl i ct m ay have thos e guns w re ste d aw ay an d tu rn ed on th em . Id. at20 37 -38
. Ot h er stud i es have f ound that in sta tes with b ro ad co nc ea l ed- ca r r y l aws th er e i s ani nc r ea se d c ha nc e th ato ne w i l lbe a vi cti m o fvi ol ent c ri m e. Yal e Law Schoo lPro fesso r s I anA y r es and J o hn J

. Dono hue I I Ico nc l ude d tha t “the evi d ence i s m ostsupporti ve ofthe cl ai m that[ ri ght- tocar ry ] l aw s inc rease agg ra vate d assa ult

. ” M o re G un s, Less Cri m eFa i l s Agai n: TheLa t e s tEvi de nc ef r o m 19 77- 2006 , 6 Econ. J
. W atch 2 18, 22 0 ( M ay 2009 )
. ( Donohue i s no w at 2

### 42 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788



### (...continued) m isi n te rp re te d th e e sti m a te s. Id. at 21 9
. St anf or d.) S i m i l ar l y, ano thers tu dy showed that “ an i ncre as e i n gun pr ev al en ce c au se s an i nt e ns i f i ca t i on ofcr i m i nalvi ol ence– a s hi ft t oward a g re ate r l ethal i ty, and hence gr eat erhar m to a com m unity. ” Ph i l i p J
. Cook & J en s L u d w ig, Th e Social Costs of Gun O w nership , 90 J. Pub

. Ec o n. 3 79 , 3 87( 2006)
. Othe rr es ea r ch er s ha ve c o ncl ud ed that guns ar e “used f ar m or e often to in tim i date an d th re at en th an th ey ar e us ed to th w ar t c rim es .” H em en w ay & A zr ae l, sup ra , at27 1. T he b an o n fi r ea r m s i n pub l i c i s al so a n i m po r ta nt m echani sm f orl aw enf or c em en t t o prot ect the publ i c. W i th guns banned in p ubl i c an of f i cer with r ea so nabl e su spi ci o n to st o p a nd fr i ska pe r so n c an, up on find ing a gun , take th e gun off t h e street before a s hoot i ng o ccurs . The m aj or i ty say s that a st ate m ay be abl e to r equi r e “o penc ar r y, ” wher e per so ns who c a r r y g uns i n pub l i c mu s tc a r r y th e m i n p l a i n v i e w. M aj
. Op. at 10. Li vi ng with th e op en car ry i ng o fl oaded gu ns on the streets ofCh icago and elsew he re w ou ld ce rt ain ly b e a b ig c h an ge t o th e d aily liv es o f Ill in ois c itiz en s. E ve n th e p lain ti ffs d o n otse em to w an t Illino is to tak e that dra sti c a ste p, re cogni zi ng tha t “ openl y c ar ry i ng handguns m ay al ar m i nd i vi du al s unac c u sto m ed to fi re ar m s” and that Heller“d oe s no t for ce s tat es to al l ow the car ry i ng o fh an d guns i n a m anner that m ay cause needl ess publi c al ar m . ” M o o reB r. at35
. The maj o r i t y a l so sugge sts thatwith o pen carry th e po li ce c o u ld stil l arrest p erson s w ho ca rryN os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 

### 43

C h ic a g o P o l i c e D ep ’t A n n u a l R ep o rt 20 1 0 , at34 , avai l abl e at 3 http s: // p or tal.chica g op olice.or g /po rtal/p ag e/po rtal/C learP ath /N ew s/S ta tis tic a l% 2 0 R ep o rt s/A n n u a l% 2 0 R ep o rt s/1 0 A R .p d f. con cealed gun s. T his is tru e b ut seem s con trad ictory to i ts sta tem en t tw o sente nces ear l i erthati n i ts vi ew, unde rthe c ur r en t l aw po l i ce wi l lo fte n l ac kr ea so nab l e s u s p i c i o n t o s t o p a p e r s o n wi th a c o n c e a l e d g un s in c e itis co n c ea led

. See M aj
. Op. a t 10
. To the l atter, g uns a r e no t al l o wed no w, s o the or et i ca l l y pe r so ns ar e at te m ptingt o c o nc ea lthe m . None th el es s, Chi cago’s Pol i ce Depar tm ent m ade ov er 4 , 0 0 0 a r re sts o n w eapons vi ol ati ons i n 200 9, though s om e o fthes e ar re sts co u ld h ave bee n m ade i n conj uncti on with o the rc r i mes a s we l l

. Mo r e i mpo r t a nt l y, “ c o nc e a l e d” 3 do es no t m ea n “ i nv i si bl e. ” An of f i ce r who r ea so nabl y s us pec ts he s ee s a g un i n a c arwhenhe p u lls s om eo n e o ve r, or n ot ice s w h at h e re as on ab ly su s p e cts to be a gu n bu lgi ng out of som eon e’s cl othe s, can und erthe l aw as i t cur re ntl y s tands ar re st that perso n and tak e the gun o ffthe str eet
. A l l owing open ( orco nceal ed) car ry does notaddress the fund am entalp oint about l aw enf or cem ent’ s abi l i ty to pr o t e c t the pu b l i c : i f g un s a r e no t g e ne r a l l y l ega l to have i n publi c, o ffi cer s ca n re m ove th em fro m the s t r e e t s b e f o r e a s ho o t i ng o c c ur s whe ne v e r they c o m e a cr o s s a g u n . Un d e ra l a w l i k e th e I l l i n o i s l a w, an o ffi cerwith s om e r eas onabl e b elie fthata perso n i s ca rr yi ng a fi re ar m can sto p that perso n and rem ove the gun fr om the str eetbec ause th e officer has a

### 44 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788

re aso nabl e b eliefthata cri m e i s t aking pl ace. The abi l i ty to use s tops and arr est s upon r eas onabl y s uspecti ng a gun as a l aw enf or cem en t t acti c to ul ti m ate l y pr ote ct mor e c i t i z e ns do e s n o two r ki fg un s c a n b e fr e e l y c a r r i e d. To the exte nt the m aj or i ty opi ni on’ s s tudie s dra w di ffe r e ntc o nc l us i o ns , the S up r e me Co ur th a s ma de cl ea rtha t “the po ss ibi l i tyo fdraw i ngt wo inc o ns i st en t co nc l us i o ns fr o m the e vi den ce ” do es no t pr ev en t a fi nd i ng fro m be in g supp or ted bysubst anti alev i dence. Tur ne rBr oad. , 520 U .S . at 2 11 ; s e eal s o Kac hal s ky, 20 12 W L 5 90 75 02 , a t * 13 ( r ec o g ni zing di ffer en t studi es c o nc erni ng re l at i o ns hi p bet wee n han dgu n a c c e s s a nd vi ol ent c ri m e, and handgun acc ess a nd s a fe ty and charac ter of p u b lic places , and stating, “I t is th e legi slature ’s j o b, no t o ur s, t o wei g h c o nfl i ct i ng ev i den ce a nd m ake p oli cy j ud gm en ts.”). M oreover, i t is not nec essary f or“the st atute ’ s be nefi ts” t o be “ fi rs t e stabl i shed by ad m iss ible ev id en c e” or b y “p ro of, sa tis fac to ry to a c ou rt .” Sk o ien , 61 4 F
. 3d at 641. N orw ou ld t he S tat e nee d to m ake a s t r o n g e r s h o w i n g he r e t h a n i n Skoi e n . Skoi e n concerned the p ro hibi ti on o n fi re ar m poss ess i on by m i sdem eanan t s w ith d o m e s tic vio lence co nv i ct i o ns , a b antha t al so a ppl i es t o the c o r e S ec o nd Ame n d me n tr i g h to fg u n p o s se ss i o n i n th e h o me . As such, the “st ro ng sho w i ng” the go ver nm ent a cknowle dge d it n ee d ed to d em on st ra te th er e m ad e s en se . Se ei d. Iwo u l d n o t e t o o th a tth e 20 0 5 p a p e r“ F i r e a r ms L a ws an d th e R ed u c tio n of V iole n c e: A S ys te m at ic R ev iew ,” quoted by the m aj or i ty f ori ts st ate m ent that ba sed o n i ts r ev i ew, e vi den ce was i ns uffi ci en t to de te r m i neN os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 

### 45

w hetherthe degre e o ffi re ar m s r egu lat ion i s a sso ci ate d w i th decr eas ed ori ncre ase d vi ol ence, M aj
. Op. at 9, d i d n o tl i mi tth a t co n c l u s i o n t o th e d e g r e e o ffi r e a r ms re gu lat ion . Th e p ap er f o u n d th e e vid en c e a va ilab le fro m i den ti fi ed studi es “ i ns uffi ci en t to de te r m i ne ” th e effectivenes s of any o f th e l aws i t r ev i ewe d, e ve n inc l udi ng ac qui si ti on restrictions (e. g., f el o ny c o nv i ct i o ns an d p e r s o na lh i s t o r i e s i nc l ud i ngp e r s o ns a dj ud i c ate d as “m ental d ef ecti ve”) , and fi re ar m s r e g i s t r ati on an d l i ce ns i ng

— propos i ti ons th at ev en the pl ai nti ff s s eem to f avo r. A nd , the paper ca ut ioned that“[ a] fi nd i ng tha t evi dence i s insuffi ci ent t o deter m i ne effecti venes s m eans that w e do not yet know what effect, i f any, the l aw h a s o n a n o u t c o me

— no t th atthe l aw ha s no e ffec t o n the ou tc om e.” H ah n etal., sup ra , at40
. The I l l i noi s s tatutes s afeguard the cor e r i ght t o bear arm s for self- d efense i n th e hom e, as w ell as th e carry ofr eady- to- use fi re ar m s o n oth er pri vate pro perty w he n p erm itted by t h e ow ne r, along w ith th e coroll ary rig h t t o t ra n sp or t w ea p on s fro m p lac e t o p lac e. See72 0 I l l

. Com p. S tat . 5 /2 4- 2; 72 0 I l l

. Com p. S tat
. 5/24- 1. 6( a) ( 1)
. Guns i n pub l i c ex po se a l lne arbyt o r i sk, a nd the r i sk ofacc i dentaldi schar ge orbad ai m has l ethalco nsequences. A l l owing pu bl i c carr y o fr eady- to- use g uns mean s th atr i ski s bo r ne b y a l l i n I l l i no i s, i nc l udi ng the v astm aj or i ty ofi ts ci ti zens w ho cho ose not to ha v e g un s . T he S t a t e o fI l l i no i s h a s a s i g ni fi c a nti nt e r e st i n m ai ntai ni ng the sa fetyo f i ts ci ti zens and pol i ce o ffi cer s. The l eg i sl atur e acted wi th i n i ts a utho r i tywheni t co ncl ud ed th at its int er es t in red u c in g g u n - re l ate d d ea th s an d inj u rie s w ou ld n ot b e as e f f e c tiv ely

### 46 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788

ser ved thr ough a l i censi ng syste m . Forone, ever y c ri m i nal w as once a l aw - abi ding ci ti zen, so st ra teg i es f or p re ve n tin g g u n vio l e n c e t h at ba r p rior cr im in als fro m h av in g fire ar m s d o n otd o e n ou gh

. SeePhi l i p J
. Cook, etal., C r i m ina l R eco rds o f Ho m icid e O

ffend ers , 294 J. A m . M ed. A ss’ n 59 8, 60 0 ( 2005 ) ( hom i ci de preve nti on str ate gi es tar get ed to w ar d pri oro ffenders “l eave a l ar ge po r ti o n o fthe prob l em unt o uch ed” )
. Norc o ul d the St ate ensur e t hat guns i n publi c ar e di schar ged only, a c c u r ately, an d reason ably i n inst an ces of self

d efe n se . See P eop le v . M im es , 9 5 3 N. E. 2 d 5 5 , 7 7( I l l

. App
. C t. 2011 ) (“Th e ex ten sive training law enforcem en t officers und er go concerni ng the use offi re ar m s a tte sts to th e d egree of d iffi cu lty and l evel of skil l ne cess ary to co m pet en tly as se ss pot en ti althr ea ts i n pub l i c si tu at i o ns an d m od er at e t h e u se of forc e.” ). T h e Su p re m e C ou r t h a s “lon g re c og n ize d th e ro le o f th e S ta te s as l ab o r at o r i es f o r dev i sing sol ut i o ns to diffi cul t le galpro bl em s, ” a nd co urts “s houl d not di mi ni s h that rol e ab s e nti mpe l l i ngr e a s o n t o do so. ” O regon v. Ice, 555 U
. S. 160, 171 ( 2009 ). I nd eed , “[i ]t i s o ne o fthe happ y inci dents o fthe fede ra l s ys tem thata si ngl e co urag eo u s S tat e m ay, i fi ts ci ti zens choos e, se rv e a s a lab or at or y; an d try n ov el s oc i a l an d ec on om ic ex p e r i m en ts w ith ou t ris k t o th e re st of th e c ou n tr y.” Ne w St at e Ice Co. v. Liebm ann , 28 5 U.S
. 26 2, 31 1 ( 1932 ) ( Brandei s, J
. , diss enti ng)
. ( A nd to the extent i t m atter s, I l l i noi s i s not th e o nl y pl ace that has a nd enf or ces str i ct gun l aw s. N ew Yor k City, f orexam ple , has gun l aw s that ar e in effect l i ke thos e o fI l l i noi s; wh i l e t echni cal l y a “m ay i ssue” l oca ti on wh er e the ci ty m ay i ssue p er m i tsN os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 

### 47 f orhandgun carry o utsi de the hom e, N ew Y or k Ci ty r ar ely d oes s o a nd s o ha s be enc ha r ac te r i ze d a s m aint ainin g a virt u al b an on h an d gu n s. See L aw re n c e R os en th al, Seco nd A m endmen t Plumbi ng a fter H ell er: Of Sta nd a rds of Sc rutin y, Inc o rpo rati o n, Well-R egu la ted M ilitia s, and Cri m i nal St r e e tGangs , 41 U rb. L aw yer 1, 39 (2009)). R ea so n ab le pe op le can d iffer on h ow gu n s s h ou ld b e r e g u l a t e d

. I l l i n o i s h a s c h o s e n t o p r o h ib i tm o s tf o r ms ofpubli c ca rr y of ready- to- use guns. I t r eaffi rm ed that j us t l as t y ea r, wheni ts l eg i sl atur e co ns i der ed an d rej ecte d a m ea su re to per m i t per sons to car ryco nceal ed w ea p on s in Il lin ois
. SeeD av e M c K i n n e y, C o nc eal ed-C a rry M ea sure: Shot D ow n in Springfi el d, Ch i c a g o S un - Ti mes, 2011 W LN R 921569 5 ( M ay 6, 20 11)
. In the abse nce ofcl ear eri nd i cati on that the Se cond A m endm ent c odi fi ed a gen erall y recogn ized right to carry arm s in pu bli c for selfdefe nse, Iwould l eave this j ud gm ent in the hand s o f the S tat e o fI l l i noi s.

12- 11- 12