Con Quotes

The NRA-ILA, the lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association:

The Second Amendment guarantees law-abiding Americans the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. But over time, gun control laws have placed limits on that freedom....

Gun control at the local level ranges widely. For example, in some towns, citizens who are licensed to carry concealed firearms cannot do so in public parks. And in Chicago, it’s unlawful to own most semi-automatic firearms.

Federal gun control legislation like the Gun Control Act of 1968and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993) created nationwide requirements that make it more difficult to obtain a firearm.

These laws have been in place for decades, and by now, the evidence is crystal clear. Gun control doesn’t work … [because] criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. Gun control laws only affect law-abiding people who go through legal avenues to obtain firearms....

[And] even if criminals did submit to background checks, we’ve seen that these checks aren’t effective at stopping those who intend to use guns to commit crimes....

On the other hand, allowing law-abiding citizens to more easily access firearms does help reduce violent crime. [243]

The Editors of the National Review:

“On Monday [July 4, 2022], in the city of Highland Park, Ill., a deranged goblin of a man opened fire on a July 4 parade, killing seven innocent people and wounding three dozen others. After an intense search, the culprit was apprehended and taken into custody. Yet again, a mass shooting has sullied America.

And, yet again, it is unclear what lawmakers can do to prevent the next one. Just weeks ago, the Senate passed a gun-control bill that Chris Murphy described as “the most significant piece of anti-gun violence legislation in nearly 30 years.” Today, posturing as if nothing has been done recently, Democrats are asking for more. But what, exactly, does that mean? A red-flag law? Illinois already has one. A permitting system for the purchase and ownership of guns? Illinois has that, too. “Universal” background checks? That’s already Illinois law. What about “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines? Highland Park has banned both since 2013. Concealed carry? That was prohibited at the parade under an Illinois law that renders it illegal to carry firearms at “any public gathering held pursuant to a license issued by any governmental body.” Straw purchasing? That’s already illegal, and, besides, the gun was obtained legally….

Because they are, relatively speaking, so rare and so unpredictable — and because America is so free — mass shootings remain one of the most intractable forms of crime….

Americans would do well to set incidents such as this one in their proper context. Random acts of violence are, indeed, terrifying, but they are terrifying because they are so rare.” [244]

Laura Carno, senior fellow emeritus at Independent Women’s Forum:

“In short, gun control legislation does not focus on the root causes of human behavior, including violence, crime, and untreated mental illness. At the heart of gun control initiatives is the hope that criminals will obey the law, but, in fact, they rarely do.

Congress, as well as state legislatures, would have us think that just one more gun-control law will magically reduce crime. But they have been saying that for decades, with no evidence of improvement. Then they offer the same legislation again.

Instead of reducing crime, new gun control legislation would:

• Not change criminal behavior. It only creates a false sense of security.
• Make law-abiding citizens less safe, especially victims of domestic violence.
• Turn law-abiding citizens into instant felons for ordinary, safe behavior.
• Be cost prohibitive for the poorest families to protect themselves.” [245]

March 27, 1876 - United States v. Cruikshank

According to Ballotpedia,

A Democratic [white] militia on April 13, 1873, attacked a group of Republican [Black] freedmen who had gathered at the Grant Parish courthouse in Colfax, Louisiana. A fight resulted and estimates were that more than one hundred Republican freedmen were killed. Some members of the Democratic militia were indicted and charged under the Enforcement Act of 1870, which allowed the federal government to enforce and prosecute in cases where groups attempted to abridge the right to vote [as well as the rights to assemble and bear arms] in the South during Reconstruction. Members of the militia were indicted and charged with sixteen crimes, including violating the freedmen’s right to lawfully vote and assemble [and bear arms].

The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not prosecute the men based on the Bill of Rights because the protections of the Bill of Rights—including the rights to vote, assemble, and bear arms—were not incorporated into state laws. Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote the majority opinion, stating:

We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other.

The ruling would be overturned by De Jonge v. Oregon (1937) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). [218]

January 4, 1886 - Presser v. Illinois

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an Illinois law prohibiting men from “associating together as military organizations or drilling or parading with arms in any city of the state without license from the governor” was constitutional.

Herman Presser, in September and December 1879, was charged with violating this law after parading through Chicago on horseback brandishing a cavalry sword while commanding a troop of some 400 men armed with rifles. The majority opinion, written by Justice William Burnham Woods, stated:

The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the states. But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers, the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security. [217]

May 15, 1939 - United States v. Miller

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that The National Firearms Act, which in this case barred the transport of an unregistered 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long for interstate commerce without obtaining a stamped written order for it, was not unconstitutional. Justice James Clark McReynolds, writing for the majority, stated:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. [219]

March 26, 1974 - Huddleston v. United States

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that stated that it is a criminal offense to knowingly make a false statement to a licensed dealer when acquiring a gun (in this case redeeming firearms from a pawn shop, but the law also applies to sales). [223]

June 6, 1977 - Scarborough v. United States

Scarborough, a convicted felon, was convicted under federal law that made it illegal for a felon to possess “in commerce or affecting commerce” any gun. The government proved that the firearm had been in interstate commerce at come point prior to Scarborough’s felony convictions and Scarborough was convicted. Appeals questioned whether the possession and interstate commerce needed to be concurrent. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the conviction, stating that proof that the firearm had at some point been involved in interstate commerce was enough to meet the law’s requirements. [238]

February 27, 1980 - Lewis v. United States

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 barring people convicted of felony crimes from owning a gun. The Court held:

the fact that there are remedies available to a convicted felon -- removal of the firearm disability by a qualifying pardon or the Secretary of the Treasury’s consent, as specified in the Act, or a challenge to the prior conviction in an appropriate court proceeding -- suggests that Congress intended that the defendant clear his status before obtaining a firearm, thereby fulfilling Congress’ purpose to keep firearms away from persons classified as potentially irresponsible and dangerous. [221]

March 26, 1985 - Ball v. United States

The U.S. Supreme Court vacated a lower court ruling that held that a person convicted of a felony could be tried for both receiving a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(h)(1) and for possessing it in violation of 18 U.S.C.App. § 1202(a)(1). The Supreme Court ruled that “Congress recognized that a felon who receives a firearm inevitably also possesses it, and therefore did not intend to subject that person to two convictions for the same criminal act.” [222]

May 24, 1993 - Smith v. United States

John Angus Smith was charged with several gun and drug trafficking offenses after offering to trade an automatic MAC-10 firearm for cocaine with an undercover officer. Federal law requires a mandatory 30 year sentence for use of a machinegun in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Smith argued the gun was only used as an exchange, not as a weapon. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed in a 6-3 decision and stated that the wording of the law—"during and in relation to . . . [a] drug trafficking crime[,] uses . . . a firearm” applies to the “use” of the firearm as a trade. [231]

May 16, 1994 - Beecham v. United States

Lenard Ray Beecham was convicted of a felony in federal court. He was later arrested for possession of a firearm and argued that he had his rights restored by the state of Tennessee. In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that only the jurisdiction that originally barred the rights (in this case, the federal government) could restore the rights. [228]

November 30, 1994 - Staples v. United States

William Staples was arrested and convicted of owning an unregistered AR-15 rifle that was modified to make the usually semi-automatic weapon an automatic weapon (or machinegun). Staples argued that he was not aware of the modification and asked that the prosecution be required to prove his knowledge in court. He was denied and convicted. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the conviction on the premise that Congress did not intend to punish lack of knowledge in cases like this. [237]

December 6, 1995 - Robinson v. United States

Federal law imposes a mandatory minimum sentence when a firearm is used or carried while committing a primary offense (drug possession in this case). Roland Bailey was arrested for possession of illegal drugs and his sentence was enhanced because he had a loaded pistol in the locked trunk of the car he was driving at the time of arrest. Candisha Robinson was arrested after police found drugs, money, and an unloaded, holstered gun locked in a trunk in her bedroom closet. Her sentence was also enhanced.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that federal law requires more than proximity to a firearm to trigger the mandatory minimum sentence. The defendant must actively employ the firearm, thus making the gun an operative factor in the primary crime. [236]

June 8, 1998 - Muscarello v. United States

Federal law includes a mandatory 5-year prison term when a person “uses or carries a firearm” “during and in relation to” a “drug trafficking crime.” Frank J. Muscarello was arrested for having marijuana in his truck that he intended to sell. At the same time, Muscarello had a handgun locked in the truck’s glove compartment. Muscarello argued that having the gun locked away in the truck was not carrying a firearm. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed and, in a 5-4 opinion, concluded that carrying a firearm applies to a person who is knowingly in possession of a firearm in a vehicle. [227]

June 22, 1998 - Caron v. United States

Convicted felon Gerald Caron was convicted of possessing six rifles and shotguns. He argued that because three of his convictions were in Massachusetts, and state law allowed Caron to own rifles and not handguns, he had not violated federal law that banned him from owning any guns. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that Caron had violated federal law. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated, “Massachusetts treats [Caron] as too dangerous to trust with handguns, though it accords this right to law-abiding citizens. Federal law uses this state finding of dangerousness in forbidding [Caron] to have any guns.” [233]

June 15, 1998 - Bryan v. United States

Sillasse Bryan was convicted of “willfully” selling firearms without a federal license. The judge instructed the jury that “a person acts ‘willfully’ if he acts with the bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law, but that he need not be aware of the specific law that his conduct may be violating,” according to Oyez. In a 6-3 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, stating that “willful” only requires that a person knows they were doing something illegal, not that the person knows the particular law. [234]

June 5, 2000 - Castillo v. United States

Following the Waco siege, Jaime Castillo was arrested and indicted for conspiring to murder federal officers. He was convicted and the judge determined that, because Castillo possessed machineguns, the mandatory 30-year prison sentence applied. Castillo appealed, arguing that the machineguns had not been used and, thus, could not be invoked to enhance his sentence. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the use of a machinegun must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury as a separate crime, rather than determined by a judge as a sentencing factor. [232]

April 26, 2005 - Small v. United States

Federal law states that gun possession is illegal for a person “convicted in any court” for crimes that are punishable for more than one year imprisonment. Gary Sherwood Small was convicted by a Japanese court for attempted firearm and ammunition smuggling and served five years in a Japanese prison. When Small returned to the U.S. and purchased a gun, federal authorities arrested him because he had been “convicted in any court.” The U.S. Supreme Court overturned Small’s American gun charge, ruling that “any court” only applied to domestic courts. [224][225]

June 26, 2008 - D.C. v. Heller

Until 2008, the Supreme Court repeatedly upheld a collective right (that the right to own guns is for the purpose of maintaining a militia) view of the Second Amendment, concluding that the states may form militias and regulate guns. The first time the Court upheld an individual rights interpretation (that individuals have a Constitutional right to own a gun regardless of militia service) of the Second Amendment was the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in DC v. Heller. The Court stated that the right could be limited: “There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited.… Thus we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.” [1][3][47]

February 24, 2009 - United States v. Hayes

Randy Hayes was convicted of a misdemeanor battery offense in West Virginia in 1994. The state bars anyone convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” from possessing a gun. In 2004, Hayes was arrested after police found a firearm in Hayes’ home when responding to a domestic violence call and arrested him on the premise that he was banned from possessing a firearm. According to Oyez, “Hayes argued that his prior conviction for misdemeanor battery did not constitute a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of violence under the statute.” The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed in a 7-2 decision, ruling that a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” does not require the existence of a “domestic relationship.” [230]

May 24, 2010 - United States v. O’Brien

Per Oyez:

A Massachusetts federal district court convicted Martin O’Brien and Arthur Burgess of attempted robbery and related weapons crimes. One of the weapons used by the defendants was an AK-47 assault rifle. At a pre-trial conference, the district court ruled that the nature of the weapon (i.e. semi-automatic, automatic, etc.) was an element of the crime and, thus, a matter for the jury to decide. After sentencing, the government appealed, arguing that the nature of the weapon was a sentencing element, and, thus a matter for the judge to decide. 

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruling that the fact of the gun being a machinegun is a point to be proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. [229]

June 28, 2010 - McDonald v. Chicago

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the Due Process Clause, includes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and, thus, the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as the federal government, effectively extending the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment to the states. [123]

March 21, 2016 - Caetano v. Massachusetts

The U.S. Supreme Court vacated a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling that upheld a stun gun ban. The lower court ruling held that stun guns “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” and that “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed and found “the Second Amendment covers all weapons that may be defined as ‘bearable arms,’ even if they did not exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted and are not commonly used in warfare,” according to Justia. [220]

June 27, 2016 - Voisine v. United States

The Supreme Court ruled (6-2) that someone convicted of “recklessly” committing a violent domestic assault can be disqualified from owning a gun under the 1996 Lautenberg Amendment to the 1968 Gun Control Act. Associate Justice Elena Kagan writing the majority opinion, stated: “Congress enacted §922(g)(9) [the Lautenberg Amendment] in 1996 to bar those domestic abusers convicted of garden-variety assault or battery misdemeanors—just like those convicted of felonies—from owning guns.” [150][151][152][153]

February 20, 2018 - Jeff Silvester, et al v. Kamala Harris

The U.S. Supreme Court indicated it would not hear an appeal to California’s 10-day waiting period for gun buyers, thus leaving the waiting period in place per the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Justice Clarence Thomas said the Court should have heard the challenge, stating “The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court’s constitutional orphan,” in reference to the Court not hearing a major Second Amendment case since 2010. [156]

June 21, 2019 - Rehaif v. United States

Hamid Mohamed Ahmed Ali Rehaif was in the United States on an F-1 nonimmigrant student visa. He was academically dismissed from Florida Institute of Technology in Decemeber 2014 and his immigration status was revoked in February 2015. In December 2015, after federal officials learned his visa had been revoked and he’d been at a shooting range days earlier (with the remaining ammunition in his hotel room), he was arrested for violating federal law that prohibits people in the country unlawfully from possessing firearms or ammunition.

The government requested a jury instruction that they were not required to prove Rehaif knew he was in the country illegally and that a person becomes unlawfully in the country on the date of the status violation (February 2015 in this case). Rehaif argued that the government had to prove that he both knew his status had expired and that he was banned from possessing the firearm, and furthermore that an immigration officer or judge determines the date of unlawful status.

In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government had an obligation to prove that Rehaif knew of both his status and that he was banned from possessing a firearm. “That is, to convict a defendant of this crime, the government must show that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he knew he belonged to the relevant class of persons when he possessed it,” according to Oyez. [235]

April 27, 2020 - New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York

The U.S. Supreme Court indicated it would not rule on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. et al., v. City of New York. The case revolved around a New York City regulation that prevented residents with “premises licenses” to take their guns to second homes and shooting ranges outside of New York City. The city repealed the regulation when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The ruling would have been the first on the scope of the Second Amendment in almost a decade. [168]

June 15, 2020 - U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Almost 12 Gun Control Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear almost a dozen cases appealing gun control laws, leaving the laws in place. In question were laws in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey that require residents to meet specific criteria to obtain a permit to carry outside of their homes. Also in question was a Massachusetts law banning certain semiautomatic guns and high-capacity magazines and a California law requiring microstamping technology and design features. Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh dissented, arguing that some of the cases should have been heard by the Supreme Court. [173]

June 23, 2022 - New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen

In the first major gun control ruling in over a decade, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that New York’s concealed carry law, which required applicants to show “proper cause” for the concealed carry permit, was unconstitutional in its New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the 6-3 majority, stated, “[b]ecause the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.” Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurring opinion, cautioned, “Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess.” [186][187]

June 21, 2024 - United States v. Rahimi

On June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law making it a crime for anyone with a domestic violence court order to possess a gun. The 8-1 ruling was the first since 2022 in which the court upheld a gun restriction. [198]

June 14, 2024 - Garland v. Cargill

On December 18, 2018, the U.S. Justice Department announced a new rule banning bump stocks, a gun attachment that allows a semi-automatic gun to fire rapidly like an automatic weapon. The new rule classified bump stocks as machine guns, which banned them nationwide under existing gun control laws as of March 26, 2019. On January 6, 2023, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the bump stock ban in a 13-3 decision, sending the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down the bump stock ban on June 14, 2024. [161][191][197]

March 4, 2025 - Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos

On August 4, 2021, the Mexican government sued U.S. gun manufacturers in U.S. federal court. The Mexican government accused the manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc.; Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.; Beretta U.S.A. Corp.; Colt’s Manufacturing Company LLC, and Glock Inc, of “actively facilitating the unlawful trafficking of their guns to drug cartels and other criminals in Mexico.” The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) estimated in 2021 that over 67 percent of criminal guns recovered in Mexico were American; another 16 percent couldn’t be traced and could also be American. The Foreign Affairs Ministry estimated 70 percent of guns trafficked in Mexico came from the United States, contributing to 17,000 homicides in 2019 alone. In February 2022, the attorneys general of 13 states filed a brief in federal court supporting the Mexican government’s lawsuit. The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court where it was heard on March 4, 2025. [184][185][210]

March 26, 2025 - Bondi v. VanDerStok

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a 2022 federal ban on ghost guns (untraceable firearms without serial numbers assembled from parts bought online or 3D printed at home). Justice Gorsuch wrote the 7-2 majority opinion. Read the full opinion here.[208]