Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 146.0

Cite as:  554 U. S. ____ (2008) 

33 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

That  they  are  small  and  light  makes  them  easy  to  steal, 
see supra, at 19, and concealable, cf. ante, at 54 (opinion of 
the  Court)  (suggesting  that  concealed-weapon  bans  are 
constitutional).

This  symmetry  suggests  that  any  measure  less  restric-
tive in respect to the use of handguns for self-defense will,
to that same extent, prove less effective in preventing the 
use  of  handguns  for  illicit  purposes.    If  a  resident  has  a 
handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then 
he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit 
suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence.  See supra, 
at 18 (handguns prevalent in suicides); Brief for National
Network  to  End  Domestic  Violence  et al.  as  Amici  Curiae 
27  (handguns  prevalent  in  domestic  violence).    If  it  is 
indeed the case, as the District believes, that the number 
of  guns  contributes  to  the  number  of  gun-related  crimes,
accidents,  and  deaths,  then,  although  there  may  be  less 
restrictive,  less  effective  substitutes  for  an  outright  ban, 
there is no less restrictive equivalent of an outright ban.

Licensing  restrictions  would  not  similarly  reduce  the 
handgun population, and the District may reasonably fear 
that  even  if  guns  are  initially  restricted  to  law-abiding
citizens,  they  might  be  stolen  and  thereby  placed  in  the 
hands of criminals.  See  supra, at 19.  Permitting certain
types  of  handguns,  but  not  others,  would  affect  the  com-
mercial  market  for  handguns,  but  not  their  availability.
And  requiring  safety  devices  such  as  trigger  locks,  or
imposing  safe-storage  requirements  would  interfere  with
any  self-defense  interest  while  simultaneously  leaving 
operable weapons in the hands of owners (or others capa-
ble  of  acquiring  the  weapon  and  disabling  the  safety  de-
vice)  who  might  use  them  for  domestic  violence  or  other 
crimes. 

The  absence  of  equally  effective  alternatives  to  a  com-
plete  prohibition  finds  support  in  the  empirical  fact  that
other States and urban centers prohibit particular types of