In 1946 there were 34,400 civilian firearms per 100,000 Americans and the murder rate was 6.9 per 100,000 population; 60 years later in 2004, gun ownership had almost tripled (85,000 guns per 100,000). Yet the murder rate had actually declined to 5.5 per 100,000. This evidence discredits the simplistic notion that increasing the civilian gunstock produces concomitant (or any) increases in murder.

Marc James Ayers
February 8, 2008
Brief of criminologists, social scientists, other distinguished scholars and the Claremont Institute as amici curiae in support of respondent.
[Only two more days until oral arguments.–Joe]

A collective right view could logically include all variety of weapons currently within the federal arsenal, because the states would be empowered to arm themselves sufficiently to thwart those same federal forces. Pet. Br. 21. Given the fact that there is no Constitutional limitation upon the types of weapons that the federal government can possess, a collective states’ right position could logically require a similar freedom for the respective state militias. If the logic behind the Second Amendment is to preserve the right of states to maintain militias that constitute a counterweight to federal forces, as Petitioners contend, then states would logically be allowed to keep and bear even the most potent and destructive weapons of modern warfare.

Renee L. Giachino
February 11, 2008
Center for Individual Freedom
[Only four more days until oral arguments.

Wow! For some time now one of my biggest fears in this case was the concern the Court might have about the harmful consequences of deciding the 2^nd Amendment was an individual right. It never occurred to me the consequences of a decision that it is “state right” (there is no such thing, states have powers not rights) might be an even bigger issue–it means the individual states are constitutionally justified if they want nukes. I love it, sort of a Cornelian dilemma for the fuzzy liberals.–Joe]

Amici therefore set out below the right to have and use arms in English law by the time of the Founding. Amici then show how early American authorities claimed and extended that right, including in interpreting the Second Amendment. The English right was a right of individuals, not conditioned on militia service; individuals might exercise the right collectively, but the unquestioned core was a broadly applicable and robust right to “keep” firearms in one’s home for self-defense. Even the “well recognized exceptions” confirmed this core right, by focusing on the carrying, not the keeping, of weapons. That core right is what the District of Columbia tramples. It bans keeping a handgun in one’s home (including use there in self-defense) and keeping any functional firearm in one’s home.

C. Kevin Marshall
February 8, 2008
Brief of the Cato Institute and history professor Joyce Lee Malcolm as amici curiae in support of respondent.
[Only five more days until oral arguments.

This brief makes it very clear the individual right to keep and bear arms was universally agreed upon, not only in America, but in England at the time of the writing of the 2^nd Amendment. It is not a recent “invention” by the Apex of The Triangle of Death.–Joe]

The District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) has failed to provide adequate police services to the District of Columbia’s citizens. The District is consistently a national leader in various crime categories while simultaneously demonstrating inability to adapt or change under the crippling bureaucracy endemic to the District. Compounding this deadly combination of high crime and inflexibility are constant examples of corruption, incompetence and outright misfeasance in the operation of the department.

[…]

Unfortunately, this is not a mere phase or temporary problem for the District. Since the 30-plus year old implementation of what amounts to a complete ban on owning, carrying or using firearms for self-defense, the MPD has cycled through new chiefs and precinct commanders with depressing frequency. The only constant within the department has been the incompetence, corruption, cronyism and failure to perform the most basic duty of a police department–to protect and serve.

L. Kenneth Hanson III
Brief of Buckeye Firearms Foundation LLC, National Council for Investigation and Security Services, Ohio Association of Private Detective Agencies, Inc., dba Ohio Association of Security and Investigation services (oasis), Michigan Council of Private Investigators, Indiana Association of Professional Investigators, and Kentucky Professional Investigators Association, as amici curiae supporting respondent.
[Only six more days until oral arguments.

I’ve only read about a quarter of the briefs supporting the respondent but surprisingly this brief makes the strongest case, for me, for supporting the RKBA in D.C. Had they concluded, instead of urging the court to affirm the lower court decision, asked the court to issue varmint hunting licenses (no bag limits) for residents for the taking of D.C. cops and politicians I would have cheered.

Assuming you have the stomach and the blood pressure meds for it, read the whole thing.–Joe]

Guns are not pathogens, and the loss of lives from guns is not a public health phenomenon in any meaningful sense. Vaccines could be taken as a public health analogy for guns. Vaccines are widely recommended or even mandated with the support of the APHA and AAP despite the fact that many are killed or injured by them, and their effectiveness is imperfect. But the APHA’s and AAP’s logic could be applied to vaccines with the false conclusion that all vaccination programs are harmful because all vaccines have some side effects. The benefits of vaccines and guns are both indirect, but the benefits are very real in both cases, and it is essential to address those benefits in any argument attempting to ban the product.

Andrew L. Schlafly
February 7, 2008
Brief for amicus curiae association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. in support of Respondent.
[Only seven more days until oral arguments.–Joe]