The nature of the right as understood and incorporated by the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment also affects the type of protection implied by that right. Being an individual right against all levels of government, the degree of scrutiny should be heightened and governmental justifications viewed with skepticism. Furthermore, given the self-defense justifications of the right, any competing claim that seeks to deny the right of or need for self defense would be inconsistent with the embedded purpose and assumptions of the right to bear arms and hence invalid on its face. Finally, while there certainly are some restrictions on arms that even the Framers understood to be permissible — use only for lawful purpose, for example — any restrictions supposedly advancing permissible interests cannot be allowed to prevent ordinary citizens from exercising the core of the right and owning a weapon capable of protecting themselves, their families, and their communities if necessary, in the very circumstances where such protection would be necessary.
Steven M. Simpson
D.C. versus Heller, Brief for the Institute for Justice as Amicus Curiae in support of respondent.
[Basically, if the government is going to claim a restriction on weapons they cannot do so in a manner which would restrict self-defense. Hence prohibitions on weapons in certain cities, such as Chicago, should be considered unconstitutional.–Joe]