General

• Americans own between 60-65 million handguns -- 1 of every 3 privately owned guns. (Firearm production, import and export data from BATF; criminologist Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns [1997] and the American Firearms Industry; and survey data from James D. Wright, et al., Under the Gun [1986])
• More than one million new handguns are manufactured (and not exported) and imported each year. (American Firearm Industry, amfire.com)
• One of every four households has one or more handguns. (Analysis of surveys,Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns [1997])

Handguns, like rifles and shotguns, are widely used for target shooting, self-protection and hunting, and many are of interest to collectors and reenactors.

Handguns, Target Shooting, and Hunting

• Each year, millions of American handgun owners engage in informal target shooting; hundreds of thousands participate in thousands of handgun matches. Handgun sports have grown dramatically in the last thirty years. Handguns are used for hunting in 45 states.

• Handguns are used for protection against criminals nearly two million times per year, up to five times more often than to commit crimes. ("The Frequency of Defensive Gun Use," in Don B. Kates and Gary Kleck, The Great American Gun Debate [1997])
• People who use guns to defend themselves are less likely to be attacked or injured than people who use other methods of protection or do not defend themselves. (Criminologist Gary Kleck's analysis of Nat'l Crime Victimization Surveys, in Kates and Kleck, The Great American Gun Debate [1997])
• The laws of all 50 states recognize the right to use armed force for defense. The U.S. Constitution and 44 state constitutions protect the right to use arms for defense.

• In America, efforts to ban handguns -- especially those to ban so-called "Saturday Night Specials" -- have historically been aimed at Blacks. (Post-bellum Black Codes, Tennessee Army & Navy Law, etc.)
• Blacks and persons in the lowest income bracket are the most likely violent crime victims. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Michael Rand, "Criminal Victimization 1997, Changes 1996-97 with Trends 1993-97," Dec. 1998)

• By an 8:1 margin, Americans believe you have the right to use a handgun to defend yourself in your own home. By a 3:1 margin, people believe that to fight crime, getting tough with criminals is more effective than banning guns. (Survey of voters, Lawrence Research, 1998)

NRA Bullseye and UIT (International Shooting Union) disciplines have been established for generations, while a variety of other target shooting disciplines have evolved during the last several decades. Ten types of NRA Action Shooting matches and action-oriented events held under International Practical Shooting Confederation rules test the ability of handgunners to fire at a variety of stationary and moving targets, at a variety of distances, from a variety of shooting positions, usually "against the clock." Center-fire and rimfire metallic silhouette matches conducted under NRA or International Metallic Silhouette Association rules add a hunting-oriented dimension to handgun target shooting. Cowboy Action Pistol matches challenge shooters' proficiency with single-action revolvers first introduced during the 19th Century. Muzzleloading pistol matches call for handguns whose design predates fixed, metallic cartridges. The NRA Competitive Shooting Division sanctions more than 12,000 shooting tournaments and sponsors over 50 national Bullseye, Action, and Silhouette pistol championships each year.

Recognizing the growth of handgun sports and advent of related equipment, Tom Griffin, Manager of the Lyman Products Ballistics Laboratory writes, "Over the last 30+ years handgun sports have grown faster than any other segment of the shooting world. . . . All of this activity has led to major advancements in the design of handguns themselves. It is hard to believe that something we take for granted today, stainless steel handguns, have only been available since the mid-sixties. Other items such as fully adjustable, precision sights, recoil absorbing rubber grips, handgun scopes, red-dot sights, laser sights, etc., have all been developed to meet the needs of the increasingly difficult handgun disciplines. Many of today's handgunners can make shots that were unheard of years ago because of their advanced equipment and participation in today's demanding sports."4

Acknowledging the growth of handgun shooting sports in a 1998 report to Congress, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) noted, "The handgun has developed as a sporting firearm used in both target shooting and hunting." Among contributing factors, BATF cited renewed interest in the single- action revolver, the development of new cartridges for field use, and the popularity of silhouette pistol shooting giving rise to specially designed handguns. Indicating the widespread use of handguns for target shooting and hunting, BATF noted that approximately 460.4 million rounds of center-fire handgun ammunition are manufactured in the U.S. each year, more than three billion rounds of .22 caliber rimfire ammunition (used in handguns and rifles) are manufactured in the U.S. or imported each year, and another 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition above .22 caliber (for handgun and/or rifle) were imported in 1996.5 Additionally, each year about 425 million rounds of center-fire ammunition are handloaded by individual gun owners for personal use.6
For more information on target shooting and a schedule of upcoming matches, contact the NRA Competitions Division at 703-267-1450 or, on the web, at NRA.org, or refer to the NRA's monthly "Shooting Sports, USA" publication. See also Lyman Pistol & Revolver Reloading Handbook, Second Edition, 1994, pp.8- 9, 86-96. Lyman's website is lymanproducts.com.

Hunting Ð In NRA's 1998 Whitetail Hunting Survey, 17% of respondents said they had hunted with a handgun during the current season. The May 1993 MRI Customized Readership survey found that for each type of game in question, between 8-10% of hunters had hunted with a handgun during the past year. Forty-five states allow hunting with handguns. In its report to Congress, BATF noted, "While any handgun could be used for hunting small game at short distances, hunting handguns tend to vary in caliber from .22 to .45, depending on the size of the game being hunted," though "some single-shot handguns . . . are chambered for rifle-type ammunition" commonly used for hunting. BATF also noted that the increased popularity of hunting with handguns led to the introduction of new calibers of handgun ammunition.7

Self-Defense Ð In a landmark survey, criminologist Gary Kleck found that handguns are used in about 2/3 of 2.5 million annual defensive firearm uses.8 Analyzing Nat'l Crime Victimization Surveys, Kleck found that people who use firearms to defend themselves are less likely to be attacked or injured than people who use other or no protective methods. Protection method and percents of individuals injured included: Used gun Ð 17.4%, Used knifeÐ 40.3%, Used other weapon Ð 22.0%, Used physical force Ð 50.8%, Tried to get help, frighten offender Ð 48.9%, Threatened, reasoned with offender Ð 30.7%, Nonviolent resistance, (including evasion) Ð 34.9%, Other measures Ð 26.5%, Any self-protection Ð 38.2%, No self-protection Ð 24.7%. Kleck also found that "at most, 1% of defensive gun uses resulted in the offender taking a gun away from the victim," including instances in which burglars stealing guns from homes are confronted by homeowners armed with other guns.9

In its report to Congress, noted above, BATF also recognized the utility of handguns for self-defense. "Self-defense handguns are generally small, lightweight revolvers and semiautomatic pistols, varying from .22 to .38 caliber," BATF stated. "Many of these firearms are available in .25, .32, .380, and 9 mm caliber. Some of the better quality self-defense handguns are also used for target shooting."10

Some believe private citizens do not have the right to use guns to protect themselves against criminals, nor to possess guns for that purpose. Sarah Brady, Chair of Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI), has said, "the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes."11 HCI's first Chairman, Pete Shields, said crime victims should "put up no defense - give them [the criminals] what they want . . ."12 According to Dennis Henigan, of HCI's Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, self-defense is "not a federally guaranteed constitutional right."13.

Weighing positive uses of handguns against criminal misuses Ð Handgun ban advocates argue that handguns are the type of firearm more likely to be used in crimes -- for example, 53% of homicides in 1997, according to the FBI.14 However, as noted, guns are used for defense against criminals three to four times more often than they are used to commit crimes. Various studies produced by researchers with a record of anti-gun viewpoints have alleged that handguns (and other firearms) kept for protection against criminals are more likely to be used against family members, but scholars have faulted the researchers' methodology. Gary Kleck explains the most serious of such studies' many flaws: "[T]he benefit of defensive gun ownership that would be parallel to innocent lives lost to guns would be innocent lives saved by defensive use of guns. As previously noted [in Kleck's book], less than one in a thousand defensive gun uses involves a criminal being killed."15 Assailing a larger body of handgun prohibitionist literature produced by public health activists, civil rights attorney Don B. Kates has written that "[A]nti-gun health advocacy literature is a 'sagecraft' literature in which partisan academic 'sages' prostitute scholarship, systematically inventing, misinterpreting, selecting, or otherwise manipulating data to validate preordained political conclusions."16

Gun Bans Throughout History Ð Restrictions on private possession of weaponry have typically been imposed out of fear that specific groups of people (generally based upon race, religion, or economic class) might threaten the power of the ruling class. "In medieval Europe the people were almost completely disarmed. When pikes and long bows were being displaced by new developments in firearms these new weapons were too expensive for the people. Furthermore, the rulers feared them in the hands of men who were being stirred by a renaissance of the arts and of the human spirit."17

The example of England is particularly instructive for those who are concerned about the past and future of the right to arms in the United States. In England, "the issue of whether the individual possessed any right to have and use arms for defense of person and property figured prominently in the conflict between commoner and king."18 For example, "Henry II's Assize of Arms of 1181 detailed the types of weapons which [free] persons of various rank were expected to have on hand" with which to defend the king,19 but "ordered the surrender of coats of mail and breastplates owned by Jews."20

"In 1670, for the first time in English history, Charles II sought to deprive all commoners of all firearms by legislation. . . . James II carried on the same policy of increasing the size of the standing army and disarming the populace, particularly Protestants. A paramount aim of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was to abolish the standing army of James II and to reinstate the right of Protestants to keep and carry arms."21 "[B]y Blackstone's time [the eighteenth century], the right to bear arms, and specifically firearms, was a well recognised element of the Constitution, existing quite separately from the obligational aspect."22

In language echoed within a decade in America's Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, Sir William Blackstone, "the noted eighteenth century jurist, whose writings on English law formed the basis for legal schooling in the colonies throughout the Revolutionary period, and for many years into the nineteenth century,"23 wrote that the rights of Englishmen "consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty and of private property" and that to protect their rights, "the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next, to the right of petitioning the King and Parliament for the redress of grievances; and lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self preservation and defence."24

"As the twentieth century opened, the British people were free to keep and bear any firearms they chose. But their resistance to gun controls finally cracked during and immediately after World War I. In 1914, "Defense of the Realm Regulations" were imposed, requiring a license for retail purchases of pistols, rifles or ammunition. Fears of a post-war communist revolution by the working classes led to discussions by senior government officials aimed at extending the restrictions after the war's end. "'It is not inconceivable," [minister of transport Sir Eric] Geddes warned, ' that a dramatic and successful coup d'etat in some large center of population might win the support of the unthinking mass of labour.' . . . Using the Irish gun licensing system as a model, the cabinet made plans to disarm enemies of the state, and prepare arms for distribution if necessary 'to friends of the government.'"25

Thus, Parliament in 1920 imposed a Firearms Act imposing licensing restrictions like the "needs-based licensing" ones proposed for the United States by Handgun Control, Inc., immediately after passage of the Brady Act in 1993. "The distinctive features [of the British provisions of 1920] are the wide-ranging discretion accorded to chief constables and the burden laid upon the applicant to 'satisfy' the chief constable both as to his personal suitability and as to his legitimate requirement for the firearms or ammunition applied for."26 Thereafter, the 1988 Firearms Act prohibited semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns with a magazine capacity of more than two rounds, and imposed "needs-based licensing" and registration on other shotguns. In February 1997, all handguns except single-shot .22s were banned. Later in the year, single-shot .22 cal. pistols were banned, making Britain's handgun ban complete. Anti-gun lobbies in Britain today push to ban the relatively few rifles and shotguns that remain.

Handgun Bans in the United States Ð In America, the first efforts to prevent the ownership of firearms and, in particular, handguns were aimed at Blacks. The French Black Code (1751) required Louisiana colonists to stop and, "if necessary," beat "any black carrying any potential weapon. . . ." After Nat Turner's rebellion in 1831, the Virginia legislature made it illegal for free blacks "to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead." In 1834, Tennessee revised Article XI, Section 26 of its Constitution to read "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense," inserting the words "free white men" to replace "freemen," whose rights were protected when the Constitution was ratified in 1796.27

Mass production techniques lowered the cost of many products, including firearms. Following the Civil War, gun prices fell within the budgets of average citizens, including former slaves who, freed, were entitled to exercise the right to arms, long considered one of the features distinguishing citizenship from servitude. As the Supreme Court had ruled in Dred Scott v. Sanford (19 How. 393, 1857), "It [citizenship] would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased . . . and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

To prevent Blacks from arming themselves, southern states enacted the Black Codes, which "fixed the black population in serfdom, denying all political rights, excluding them from virtually any chance at economic or social advancement Ð and, of course, forbidding them to own arms."28 Following ratification of the 14th Amendment (1868) and enactment of the Civil Rights Act (1875), several states responded by passing laws which on their face were race-neutral, but which in effect were not. Attorney Robert Dowlut has observed, "It does not matter that a law on its face applies to all. A law will be deemed unconstitutional if the 'the reality is that the law's impact falls on the minority.'"29

Among these laws, the forerunners of modern "Saturday Night Special" legislation, was Tennessee's "Army and Navy" law (1879), which prohibited the sale of any "belt or pocket pistols, or revolvers, or any other kind of pistols, except army or navy pistol" models, among the most expensive, and largest, handguns of the day. ( E.g. Colt Model 1960 Army, Model 1851 Navy, and Model 1861 Navy percussion cap revolvers, or Model 1873 Single-Action Army revolver.) The law thus prohibited small 2-shot derringers and low-caliber rimfire revolvers, handguns that most Blacks could afford.

20th Century Anti-Handgun Efforts in the U.S. Ð In 1911, New York passed the Sullivan Law, which to this day requires a person to obtain a license, issued at the discretion of police officials, to possess a handgun. The law was aimed at preventing handgun ownership by Italians and Irish immigrants of the period, then considered untrustworthy by New York legislators with different bloodlines.

The National Firearms Act (1934), as originally proposed, would have required registration of handguns. As passed, the law imposed that requirement on only fully-automatic firearms and short-barreled shotguns and rifles. While consideration had been given to banning those firearms altogether, President Roosevelt's Justice Department believed a ban would have violated the Second Amendment.

In 1968, Congress passed the Gun Control Act, ostensibly in reaction to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. But even supporters of "gun control" have recognized another purpose to the law. Robert Sherrill noted, "The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks . . . . Inasmuch as the legislation finally passed in 1968 had nothing to do with the guns used in the assassinations of King and Robert Kennedy, it seems reasonable to assume that the law was directed at that other threat of the 1960s, more omnipresent than the political assassinÐnamely, the black rioter . . . . With the horrendous rioting of 1967 and 1968, Congress again was panicked toward passing some law that would shut off weapons access to blacks."30 B. Bruce-Briggs, not a gun control advocate, similarly noted, "It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the 'Saturday night special' is emphasized because it is cheap and is being sold to a particular class of people. The name is sufficient evidenceÐthe reference is to 'n-----town Saturday Night.'"31

Conspicuously, the race-oriented history of many federal and state "gun control" laws has escaped the attention of many in the civil rights community. Legal scholars Robert J. Cottrol and Raymond T. Diamond have written, "The history of blacks, firearms regulations, and the right to bear arms should cause us to ask new questions regarding the Second Amendment....Perhaps a re-examination of this history can lead us to a modern realization of what the framers of the Second Amendment understood: that it is unwise to place the means of protection totally in the hands of the state, and that self-defense is also a civil right."32

Anti-Gun Groups' Handgun Ban Strategy Today Ð During the last several decades, most anti-gun groups in the U.S. have generally sought a complete prohibition on handguns only, calling for merely more severe regulation of long guns (rifles and shotguns). Fewer people own handguns than long guns, thus there is a smaller base of opposition to a handgun ban, and handguns are easier to portray negatively, based upon their greater likelihood to be used in crimes, compared to long guns.

In the mid-1970s, HCI (then named the National Coalition to Control Handguns), called for "A ban on the manufacture, sale, and importation of all handguns and handgun ammunition...[and] a buy-back program whereby gun owners would be reimbursed for turning their guns over to the government."33 Soon, HCI outlined its strategy to achieve the complete prohibition of handguns: "[O]ne step at a time. . . . Our ultimate goal--total control of handguns in the United States--is going to take time. . . .The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition... totally illegal."34 In 1981, Shields, without declaring his group's ultimate purpose, wrote, "We should face the simple fact that licensing and registration [of gun owners and guns] are, or should be, duties of citizenship."35

In 1989, anti-gun groups placed most of their efforts to ban handguns on hold, temporarily, to pursue a new legislative target of opportunity. The previous year, Josh Sugarmann, leader of a fringe group now called the Violence Policy Center (VPC), known and often rebuked for its irrational positions on firearm issues (see the NRA-ILA Research and Information Division "Right to Carry" fact sheet), had argued to fellow activists that "[T]he issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press and public" and that anti-gun groups needed "a new topic in what has become to the press and public an 'old debate.'" Sugarmann then suggested that "Efforts to restrict assault weapons are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns" because of the appearance. "The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."36

Following the federal "assault weapons" law (Sept. 13, 1994), however, anti-gun efforts refocused on handguns. In the 104th Congress, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) introduced her "Junk Gun Violence Protection Act," modified and reintroduced in the 105th Congress as the "American Handgun Standards Act," and again introduced in the 106th Congress as S. 193. The bills proposed to prohibit the manufacture, in the U.S. of any handgun that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms considers ineligible for importation under 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3). (The bill in the 104th Congress would have also affected rifles and shotguns.) By regulations adopted by the BATF, a handgun is ineligible for importation if it fails requirements related to length, weight, caliber and other features. ( See NRA-ILA "S. 193: Senator Barbara Boxer's 'Junk Guns' Bill" fact sheet.)

While Sen. Boxer claimed her bill would prohibit "Junk Guns--also called Saturday Night Specials," the bill would have prohibited many expensive handguns on the basis of the size alone. Testament to the fact that anti-gun groups apply labels to guns arbitrarily, other bills or laws have defined "Saturday Night Specials" on the basis of the melting point of the metals used in a handgun's construction, or on the basis of a variety of a handgun's attributes. During the late 1990s, several California municipalities defied the state's local ordinance preemption law by imposing their own "Saturday Night Special" laws. Concurrently, anti-gun groups and politicians launched campaigns for mandatory inclusion of trigger locks with all handguns sold, or for a ban on the sale of any handgun not possessing an integral "personalized" safety mechanism, and for lawsuits against manufacturers of handguns, alleging them liable for injuries inflicted by criminals using handguns.

Judging Handgun Control, Inc. by its deeds, not its words Ð Today HCI claims no interest in handgun prohibition,37 but its efforts have been and remain consistent with the prohibitionist strategy laid out by Shields nearly a quarter-century ago. In the 1980s, HCI filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of the Morton Grove handgun ban. Following passage of the Brady bill in 1993, which initially imposed a records check on handgun purchasers in states not having a comparable requirement of their own (allowing the police a maximum of five days to complete the check), HCI referred to the measure as "the cornerstone of our national gun policy" and announced a campaign for licensing of gun owners, gun registration, and a host of other onerous measures later incorporated into a so-called "Brady II" bill introduced by the sponsor of the 1993 "Brady bill," Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).

More recently, with the federal Instant Check replacing the earlier Brady Act provision on Nov. 30, 1998, HCI, which had previously called for a waiting period on retail sales of handguns, began calling for a waiting period on all firearm transfers, retail and private, handguns and long guns -- a measure that could be enforced only if a universal gun registration law (HCI's "second problem") were also imposed. The rambling soundbite used by HCI's current leader to promote the scheme: "We need to close the gun show loophole which allows so-called "private collectors" at gun shows to sell their wares to anyone without doing a criminal background check. We also need to reinstate the Brady Law's waiting period which expired on Nov. 30, 1998."38 There is no gun show "loophole," of course, since laws regulating sales of firearms apply at gun shows just as they apply anywhere else, and it should be noted that federal law expressly permits people to sell guns from their personal collections without having to obtain a federal firearm dealer's license, which today costs $200. And, as noted, HCI supports mandatory trigger lock sales and lawsuits against handgun manufacturers.

Anti-gun advocates whose words and deeds match Ð Other activists make no attempt to conceal their desire to outlaw handguns altogether. On Jan. 20, 1999, VPC advocated subjecting firearms to consumer product regulations to be enforced by BATF and said, "we believe that ultimately handguns would be phased out through such an agency."39 VPC opposes even the voluntary use of "trigger locks," believing such devices might encourage handgun ownership. Sen. John Chafee (R-R.I.) has introduced legislation to outlaw handguns.

The late Marvin Wolfgang, once the most prominent anti-gun criminologist in America, wrote in 1995 that, if possible, he would "eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police."40 U.S. Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy, while expressing support for legislation to impose a mandatory waiting period on all retail and private firearm transfers, said he favors an outright ban on handguns, but doubts that Americans would support such a measure.41 The founder of the HELP (Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan) network, a group composed largely of anti-gun activists in the public health field, stated that the group's purpose is to "work toward changing society's attitude toward guns so that it becomes socially unacceptable for private citizens to have handguns."42

Washington, D.C. Ð The injustice of outlawing handguns is nowhere more evident than in our nation's capital. During the 1960s, D.C. began requiring police approval to buy a handgun and imposed handgun registration. A law prohibiting the possession of handguns not previously registered with the police took effect in Feb. 1977. Even handguns that remain legal to possess cannot realistically be legally used for protection, even at home, since it is illegal to possess a loaded firearm at home. This, in a city where "official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection . . . [there is] no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d1 1, D.C. App. 1981)

Attorney Stephen Halbrook, who has successfully argued firearm law issues before the U.S. Supreme Court, has described D.C. gun laws as a "badge of slavery" that treats District residents as "second class citizens" in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and various civil rights legislation adopted by Congress since the Civil War.43 D.C.'s homicide rate more than tripled after handguns were banned, and began to decrease only recently, when crime began decreasing nationally. Anti-gun activists claim that homicides declined after the ban, deceptively counting annual homicide numbers when the city's population was falling.44 Homicides were declining before the ban, however, and homicide rates increased gradually after the law, dropped sharply after enactment ( 1982 ) of an NRA-backed mandatory penalty for using a gun during a violent crime, rose gradually as the penalty fell into disuse, then rose sharply with the advent of "crack" cocaine.

Washington Homicide Numbers/Per Capita Rates (FBI Uniform Crime Reports)

1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
268 277 235 188 192 189 180 200 223 194 183 175 147
35.9 38.3 32.8 26.8 27.8 28.0 27.4 31.5 35.1 30.7 29.4 28.1 23.5

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
194 225 369 434 472 482 443 454 399 360 397 301
31.0 36.2 59.5 71.9 77.8 80.6 75.2 78.5 70.0 65.0 73.1 56.9

From 1974-1976, before the law took effect, the homicide rate dropped 30%. In 1990 380 of the city's 382 firearm-related homicides were committed with handguns. In 1991, 383 of 385 firearm-related homicides were committed with handguns. Between 1976 and 1991, D.C.'s homicide rate tripled. In 1993 all of the city's 368 firearm-related homicides were committed with handguns. In 1994, all of the city's 350 firearm-related homicides were committed with handguns. In 1995, 304 of the city's 309 firearm-related homicides were committed with handguns. (Source: D.C. Police)

Chicago, Illinois Ð Chicago imposed a handgun registration requirement in 1968, with no effect on the city's rising handgun homicide numbers or the percentages that handgun homicides comprised of total homicides: (Chicago Homicide Dataset)

1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
262 274 334 409 390 398 459 464
47% 42% 47% 51% 47% 56% 53% 48%

After peaking in 1974, Chicago homicides declined until the 1980s. In April 1982, a law prohibiting possession of handguns not previously registered with the police took effect in Chicago. Annual handgun homicide numbers and percentages of total homicides fluctuated, then rose sharply:

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
254 290 289 261 285 260 371 417 513 542 534 551
38% 40% 39% 39% 38% 38% 56% 56% 60% 58% 57% 65%

Today, Chicago has the fourth highest homicide rate among major U.S. cities. It experienced a slight increase in homicides during the first half of 1998, relative to the same period in 1997.

Morton Grove, Illinois Ð On June 8, 1981, despite a history of low crime rates, Morton Grove enacted an ordinance banning private possession of handguns, effective Feb. 1, 1982. The measure was contested in federal and state court. On Dec. 29, 1981, the judge of the U.S. District Court upheld the ban, stating it did not violate either the Illinois or U.S. constitutions, because it did not outlaw all firearms. (Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 532 F.Supp. 1169, N.D. Ill.) The judge cited Presser v. Illinois (1886), in which the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment prohibits infringements on the right to arms by Congress, not by the States.

On Jan. 29, 1982, the ban was upheld by the judge of the Illinois Circuit Court of Appeals. (Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 113 Ill. App.3d 488.) Both decisions were appealed. On Dec. 6, 1982, the ban was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in a 2-1 decision. (Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261.) The court said that "Morton Grove may exercise its police power to prohibit handguns even though this prohibition interferes with an individual's liberty or property," and that such a measure does not violate the Illinois or U.S. Constitutions because it does not prohibit all firearms. The dissenting judge called the ruling "a new low for the fundamental principle that 'a man's home is his castle.'"

The 7th Circuit also held that the Second Amendment restricts only Congress from infringing the right to keep and bear arms.45 In dictum ( oberter dictum, an opinion which does not embody the resolution or determination of the court, and which goes beyond the facts before the court), the 7th Circuit misinterpreted the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller (1939) as holding that the right to arms applies "only to those arms which are necessary to maintain a well regulated militia," and that privately owned handguns are not military arms. The court stated, "The right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the second amendment."

[The question in Miller was whether the National Firearms Act (1934) violated the Second Amendment by restricting possession of a short-barreled shotgun, and whether such a firearm had been proven suitable for militia use and was thus protected by the Second Amendment. No evidence on the question had been recorded in the lower court, thus the Supreme Court ruled, "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession of 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." The Court ignored the use of short-barreled shotguns in trench warfare during World War I. Anti-gun activists who claim that military-looking semi-automatic rifles (assault weapons) are "weapons of war" and for that reason should be denied to civilians contradictorily claim that in Miller the Court held that the Constitution protects the right to keep and bear only such arms that are useful for military purposes.]

The court should have taken notice of the very common use of handguns by U.S. military and naval personnel throughout our nation's history. "Pistols were used throughout the Revolutionary War, and not just by officers. '[T]he pistol was the principal firearm of a small yet important body of enlisted men.' The cavalry, the navy, and selected infantry regiments all used pistols. The first federal militia statute (1 Stat. 271, 272, 1792) mentioned pistols, and colonial laws more generally also considered pistols legitimate arms."46 The previously- mentioned Colt Models 1851 Navy, 1860 Army and 1861 Navy revolvers and many similar handguns were used extensively during the Civil War, on both sides. The nearly-ubiquitous Model 1911 Colt .45 pistol was widely used by our troops during World War I (and later, WWII, the Korean War and the Vietnam War). [Though after the Court's decision in the Miller case, it is worth noting that during WWII the militia were called out to defend the home front with privately owned weapons, and a manual distributed by the War Department directed citizens to keep weapons "easily portable and easily concealed. First among these is the pistol."47

On May 31, 1983, NRA filed a petition urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 7th Circuit's ruling, and in our July 1983 membership magazine (The American Rifleman) announced to its members that a ruling from the high court "ultimately could lead to a definitive federal ruling on the right keep and bear arms." (With their usual regard for the truth, anti-gun groups to this day claim that the NRA refuses to press for the Supreme Court to hear an important case affecting the right to arms.) On October 3, the Court declined to hear the case. On Oct. 19, 1984, in a 4-to-3 decision, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the ban as within Morton Grove's "police powers." (Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 470 N.E.2d 266, Ill.). Article I, § 22, of the Illinois Constitution reads: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Prior to the ban, there were an estimated 3,000 privately owned handguns in Morton Grove. Compliance with the law was slight, with fewer than 20 handguns turned in or seized by police after the law took effect. Survey research by Professor Paul Lavrakas of Northwestern University indicated that 80% or more of Morton Grove households (2,400+) still had handguns two years after the law's enactment. Most people who turned in handguns were much older than the 15- to 30-year-old age group disproportionately responsible for firearm-related crime. The average person turning in a handgun was 63 years old; the mean age was 67. One handgun came from someone under the age of 40, two from people under the age of 50; three from people 70 years old or older. Crime rates remained low after the ban, except for a short-term increase in burglary.

Kennesaw, Georgia Ð In April 1982, Kennesaw government officials responded to the Morton Grove ban by passing an ordinance "to provide for the civil defense of the City of Kennesaw, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the City and its inhabitants." The ordinance states that "Every head of household residing in the City Limits of the City of Kennesaw is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefor," except criminals, persons with moral or religious objections, and those mentally or physically incapacitated. (Code of Ordinances, Chapter 8: Civil Defense and Disaster Relief, Section 8-10, enacted March 15, 1982.) Gun ownership rates were not expected to change after the ordinance; most households were presumed to have firearms. Instead, it was expected that publicity surrounding the ordinance would warn criminals that residents were capable of protecting themselves and their community and would do so with the government's blessing. Between 1981-1985 violent crimes in Kennesaw dropped 71%; burglaries dropped 65%. Between 1981-1993, Kennesaw's population doubled, but burglaries dropped 16%.

California's Proposition 15 Ð On Nov. 2, 1982, Californians voted on a handgun ban initiative that anti- gun groups and their allies in the press were sure would be overwhelmingly approved. An estimated 250,000 Californians registered to vote solely because of the handgun issue. Fifty-four of California's 58 sheriffs opposed the proposal. The measure was defeated 63%-37%. The Washington Post reported that the Director of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns called the vote "a temporary glitch." On May 6, 1983, President Ronald Reagan, previously California governor for two terms, commended the NRA for helping to defeat the ban, saying, "You shocked California last November when you mobilized to help send Proposition 15 down to defeat. You pointed out that police would be so busy arresting handgun owners, they would be unable to protect the people against criminals. It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun control laws. I happen to know this from personal experience."

Oak Park, Illinois Ð Despite stable or declining violent crime and burglary trends in other Chicago suburbs, rates of those crimes increased sharply in Oak Park after the village banned handgun sales in 1977. Between 1977-1984: Aggravated

Homicide Robbery Assault Burglary
Oak Park 58.0% 83.0% 113.0% 109.0%
U.S. Suburbs -13.0% -5.0% 5.0% -19.0%
U.S. -9.0% 8.0% 17.0% -12.0%

In 1984, Oak Park banned private possession of handguns altogether, prompting a citizens' movement to repeal the ordinance. In 1986, after Oak Park prosecuted a resident who used a handgun to fire on robbers who held him up in his service station, the mayor of Kennesaw, Ga., declared the man an honorary citizen of Kennesaw, and presented him a plaque stating that the Georgia town was "proud of citizens such as yourself who stand up for their constitutional rights to own and bear arms in defense of their lives and property." When challenged by a reporter about Oak Park's increase in burglaries after banning possession of handguns, the village's president could respond with only a personal attack, accusing the journalist of trying to "insist on the gun nut (Kennesaw's mayor) being right."

Evanston, Illinois Ð Evanston banned handguns in mid-1982. By 1983, Evanston's robbery rate had risen 8%, while nationwide suburban areas experienced a 20% decline, and the U.S. rate declined 16%.

Wisconsin Ð Despite predictions by the media of a landslide victory by anti-gun activists, voters in the city of Madison rejected a non-binding handgun ban referendum in April 1993, by a margin of 51%-49%. On Nov. 8, 1994, Milwaukee voters rejected a binding handgun ban proposal by a margin of 67%-33%, and Kenosha voters defeated a similar measure by 73%-27%. A non-binding handgun ban referendum in Shorewood passed by 576 votes. In 1998, Wisconsin voters approved, by a 3:1 margin, an amendment to their state constitution protecting the right to arms "for security, defense," and other purposes.

Public OpinionÐ A 1998 national survey of voters by Lawrence Research found that by an 8:1 margin, Americans believe you have the right to use a handgun to defend yourself in your own home. By a 3:1 margin, they believe that to fight crime, getting tough with criminals is more effective than banning guns. A U.S. News & World Report poll published May 22, 1995, found that 75% of Americans believe "the Constitution guarantees you the right to own a gun." Only 18% disagreed. In Jan. 24, 1994, NBC TV News asked viewers "Should handguns be banned ?" By a margin of 80%-20%, respondents said "No."