Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page Number: 148

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

35 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

N. Y., City Code §180–1(F) (2000); Chicago, Ill., Municipal
Code §8–24–025(a), 8–20–030(h); Cincinnati, Ohio, Admin. 
Code §708–37(a) (Supp. 2008); Cleveland, Ohio, Ordinance
§628.03(a)  (2008);  Columbus,  Ohio,  City  Code  §2323.31
(2007);  Denver,  Colo.,  Municipal  Code  §38–130(e)  (2008); 
Morton  Grove,  Ill.,  Village  Code  §6–2–3(B);  N. Y. C. 
Admin.  Code  §10–303.1  (2007);  Oak  Park,  Ill.,  Village
Code  §27–2-1;  Rochester,  N. Y.,  Code  §47–5(f)  (2008);
South  Bend,  Ind.,  Ordinance  §§13–97(b),  13–98  (2008);
Toledo, Ohio, Municipal Code §549.23(a).  These bans, too, 
suggest  that  there  may  be  no  substitute  to  an  outright 
prohibition  in  cases  where  a  governmental  body  has 
deemed a particular type of weapon especially dangerous. 

D 
The  upshot  is  that  the  District’s  objectives  are  compel-
ling;  its  predictive  judgments  as  to  its  law’s  tendency  to
achieve those objectives are adequately supported; the law 
does  impose  a  burden  upon  any  self-defense  interest  that
the Amendment seeks to secure; and there is no clear less 
restrictive  alternative.    I  turn  now  to  the  final  portion  of
the  “permissible  regulation”  question:  Does  the  District’s
law  disproportionately  burden  Amendment-protected 
interests?  Several  considerations,  taken  together,  con-
vince me that it does not. 

First, the District law is tailored to the life-threatening
problems  it  attempts  to  address.    The  law  concerns  one 
class  of  weapons,  handguns,  leaving  residents  free  to
possess shotguns and rifles, along with ammunition.  The 
area that falls within its scope is totally urban.  Cf. Loril-
lard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U. S. 525, 563 (2001) (var-
ied  effect  of  statewide  speech  restriction  in  “rural,  urban, 
or suburban” locales “demonstrates a lack of narrow tailor-
ing”).  That  urban  area  suffers  from  a  serious  handgun-
fatality  problem.    The  District’s  law  directly  aims  at  that
compelling  problem.  And  there  is  no  less  restrictive  way