About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

20 J. Contemp. L. 381 (1994)
Rational Basis Analysis of Assault Weapon Prohibition

handle is hein.journals/jcontemlaw20 and id is 385 raw text is: Rational Basis Analysis of Assault Weapon Prohibition David B. Kopel* I. INTRODUCTION One evening, a gang brawl broke out in the street next to the northwest Denver home of a young woman named Sharon Deatherage. A police car happened upon the scene, and sped away without taking any action, never to return. As a result of this experience, the young woman, who lived alone, decided that she would have to take measures to protect herself because she could not rely on the Denver City govern- ment for protection. Because of an injury to her wrist, she was unable to use a handgun. At the suggestion of a firearms instructor, she bought an M-1 carbine, which is a relatively small, low-powered semiautomatic rifle, and which has been commercially available for nearly half a century.' Not long after she bought the weapon, the City of Denver turned Ms. Deatherage into a criminal by declaring her M-1 carbine and its attached 30-round ammunition magazine an illegal assault weapon. Three states-California, New Jersey,' and Connecticut--have enacted assault weapon prohibitions, as have over two dozen cities or counties.' At the federal level, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has used its authority over the import of non-sporting weap- ons to impose a 1989 import ban on certain rifles, and a 1993 import ban on certain pistols. As of August 1994, Congress had not enacted a comprehensive federal assault weapon prohibition. The Congressional * Research Director, Independence Institute, Golden, Colorado. B.A., Brown University; J.D., University of Michigan, technical consultant to the International Wound Ballistics Association. The author would like to. thank Andy Chaisen, Paul Blackman, Bob Dowlut, Sandra Froman, Richard Gardiner, Don Kates, and Dan Polsby for their comments. Errors are, of course, solely the author's. ' Deposition of Sharon Deatherage, State of Colo. ex. 60, at 3, 5-8, Robertson v. Denver, no. 90CV603 (Denver Dist. Ct. Feb. 26, 1993). 2 CAL. PENAL CODE §§ 12275-12290 (West 1992). 3 N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 2C:39-1 to 39-12, 43-6 to 43-7, 58-5 to 58-11 (West 1982 & Supp. 1993). 1993 Conn. Legis. Serv. 93-306 (West). * See, e.g., New York City, N.Y. Local Law 78-88-823 (1991); HAW. REV. STAT. §§ 134-1, 134- 4, 134-8 (West 1988 & Supp. 1993). 381

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most