Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

Cite as:  577 U. S. ____ (2015) 

5 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

Lastly,  the  Seventh  Circuit  considered  “whether  law-
abiding  citizens  retain  adequate  means  of  self-defense,”
and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because 
“[i]f  criminals  can  find  substitutes  for  banned  assault 
weapons,  then  so  can  law-abiding  homeowners.”  784 
F. 3d,  at  410,  411.    Although  the  court  recognized  that 
“Heller  held  that  the  availability  of  long  guns  does  not 
save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller 
did  not  foreclose  the  possibility  that  allowing  the  use  of 
most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives house-
holders adequate means of defense.”  Id., at 411. 

That  analysis  misreads  Heller.  The  question  under 
Heller  is  not  whether  citizens  have  adequate  alternatives
available for self-defense.  Rather, Heller asks whether the 
law  bans  types  of  firearms  commonly  used  for  a  lawful
purpose—regardless  of  whether  alternatives  exist.    554 
U. S., at 627–629.  And Heller draws a distinction between 
such  firearms  and  weapons  specially  adapted  to  unlawful
uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. 
Id.,  at  624–625.  The  City’s  ban  is  thus  highly  suspect 
because  it  broadly  prohibits  common  semiautomatic  fire-
arms  used  for  lawful  purposes.  Roughly  five  million
Americans  own  AR-style  semiautomatic  rifles.    See  784 
F. 3d, at 415, n. 3.  The overwhelming majority of citizens
who  own  and  use  such  rifles  do  so  for  lawful  purposes, 
including  self-defense  and  target  shooting.    See  ibid. 
Under  our  precedents,  that  is  all  that  is  needed  for  citi-
zens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep
such  weapons.  See  McDonald,  561  U.  S.,  at  767–768; 
Heller, supra, at 628–629. 

The  Seventh  Circuit  ultimately  upheld  a  ban  on  many 
common  semiautomatic  firearms  based  on  speculation
about the law’s potential policy benefits.  See 784 F. 3d, at 
411–412.  The court conceded that handguns—not “assault
weapons”—“are  responsible  for  the  vast  majority  of  gun
violence in the United States.”  Id., at 409.  Still, the court