The Supreme Court has thus far dodged review of these bans. However, while courts have upheld the bans in places like Illinois, some of us believe that banning weapons like the AR-15 is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
We have a Second Amendment protection of gun ownership, with over 490 million guns in private hands, as of 2022. In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms. The Supreme Court further strengthened the right in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.
The AR-15 is the most popular gun in America and the number of these guns in private hands is continuing to rise rapidly, with one AR-15 purchased in every five new firearms sales. These AR-15s clearly are not being purchased for armored deer. Many are purchased for personal and home protection; it is also popular for target shooting and hunting. Many gun owners like the AR-15 because it is modular; depending on the model, you can swap out barrels, bolts and high-capacity magazines, or add a variety of accessories. While it does more damage than a typical handgun, it is not the most powerful gun sold in terms of caliber; many guns have equal or greater caliber.
Courts are divided on both the bans on semiautomatic weapons and the magazine bans.
However, what makes the Minnesota law so distinctive is the provision on home inspections. The law states that, in addition to securing state permission or certification for the possession of existing weapons, owners must “agree to allow the appropriate law enforcement agency to inspect the storage of the
device to ensure compliance with this subdivision.”
So new sales of these models would be banned, while existing weapons could only be retained if owners agree to home inspections. It is part of an overall assault on gun rights not just to limit models but to add layers of regulation for those who wish to retain their weapons.
These laws will, hopefully, compel the Court to accept review of these laws and bring greater clarity on the scope of this individual right.