Pennsylvania’s longstanding constitutional recognition of an individual right to bear arms in defense of self and state and its colonial and early state history inform any inquiry into the meaning of the Second Amendment. The impetus for adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution came from the states, among which Pennsylvania was an important motivating force. The right to bear arms in self-defense is as important today as ever. The Second Amendment recognizes an individual, and fundamental, right to own a gun for self-defense.

John P. Krill
February 11, 2008
D.C. v. Heller
Brief for amicus curiae the President Pro Tempore of the Senate of Pennsylvania, Joseph B. Scarnati, III, in support of respondent.
[It was 7:00 AM this morning, I was half asleep, almost listening to the news when I heard something about the Supreme Court and the D.C. ban. I jumped out of bed and ran to the computer to get more news. Google News didn’t have anything and I anxiously watched the SCOTUS blog live for information. Nothing on Heller today. But the ruling is expected be sometime this month. Until then I’ll be quoting D.C. v Heller briefs every day.–Joe]

Hobbes believed that the primary purpose for which societies are formed was to enhance the ability to protect oneself, and as such, the first law of nature could never be compromised, altered or diminished by any contract establishing that society. This right was so fundamental that it was deemed unalienable: “A covenant not to defend myself from force, by force, is always void.”

James R. Schaller
D.C. v. Heller
Brief of International Scholars as amici curiae in support of respondent.
[Having not read Hobbes (shame on me) I have always said this differently. Instead I have said, “Self defense is a right all species on this planet have claimed for all time.” This brief is interesting for other reasons as well. They explain in great detail how the anti-gun bigots who filed briefs in support of the D.C. gun ban are also liars.–Joe]

Amici have no fears that upholding the rights of law-abiding citizens to possess handguns and other functional defensive firearms in their homes will endanger law enforcement officers. Police in the District are killed at a rate about six times higher than the national rate, a statistic that hardly suggests that the District’s ban on law-abiding citizens protecting their homes has helped protect the police.

David B. Kopel
D.C. v. Heller
Brief of The International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), The International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (IALEFI), Maryland State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, Southern States Police Benevolent Association, 29 Elected California District Attorneys, San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association, Long Beach Police Officers Association, Texas Police Chiefs Association, Texas Municipal Police Association, New York State Association of Auxiliary Police, Mendocino County, Calif., Sheriff Thomas D. Allman, Oregon State Rep. Andy Olson, National Police Defense Foundation, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and The Independence Institute as amici curiae in support of respondent.
[Kopel rocks with the numbers in this brief. This is an excellent source for exploding many of the fallacies used by the anti-gun bigots against us.–Joe]

The Second Amendment’s historical self-defense purpose should be used to define the scope of its protections. In our view, the Second Amendment protects the right to own firearms of a kind that are commonly used for self-defense by law-abiding individuals. We do not doubt that the government can outlaw private ownership of unusually destructive or exotic weapons. But private ownership of all handguns cannot be prohibited because handguns are the kind of weapon best suited for and most commonly owned for the purpose of self-defense.

Richard K. Willard
D.C. versus Heller
Brief Amicus Curiae Of The Heartland Institute in support of respondent.

Nor may the government justify a ban on a particular firearm simply by claiming to allow the possession of others. While it is a dubious proposition that Petitioners allow individuals any firearms for private home use, the government’s compliance with the Constitution by allowing rifles would not permit the government to violate the Constitution by banning handguns–any more than the government could prohibit books because it permits newspapers and considers them an “adequate substitute.”

Alan Gura
Robert A. Levy
Clark M. Neily III
February 24, 2008
RESPONDENT’S BRIEF
On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit

Madison’s very organization shows the right to arms was seen as an individual right and not as militia-related. Madison’s draft did not take the format with which we are today familiar, that of a numbered list of amendments following the Constitution. Rather, his draft designated where, within the Constitution, each provision was to be inserted.

For example, his provisions relating to the House of Representatives were to be inserted in Article I, Section 2. An unsuccessful proposal to forbid States to infringe the rights of conscience was to be inserted in Article I, Section 10, alongside its other “Restrictions Upon Powers of States.” Provisions relating to jury trial, grand juries, and appeals were to be placed in Article III.

Thus, if Madison had seen the future Second Amendment as militia-related, he would have designated its place next to the Militia Clauses in Article I, Section 8.

Instead Madison grouped it with freedom of speech, press, assembly and other individual rights, and designated their place in Article I, Section 9, right after “No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.” Madison’s arrangement is compelling evidence that he did not view the right to arms as a guarantee relating to States and militias; its militia reference was explanation, not an operative part of its guarantee.

David T. Hardy
Brief of amicus curiae, Academics for the Second Amendment
[Sometime this month the Supreme Court will settle “the question”. We know the correct answer. We’ve known it all along. We just had trouble convincing those bigots who didn’t want to confront reality. Nearly everyone expects the court to deliver us an easily wielded “clue by four” on at least this one point. I just hope we have the wisdom to use it correctly and not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.–Joe]

The view that the right of armed self defense was a first law of nature both preceded enactment of the Constitution, and continued to prevail in the decades following its enactment. Shortly before the Revolutionary war commenced, Blackstone confirmed that every Englishman had the right of “arms for their defence,” which stemmed from “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

Michael B. Minton
Brief of Pink Pistols and gays and lesbians for individual liberty as amici curiae in support of respondent.