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.

While the AAP Brief purports to defend the interests of children, in fact the gun is the best protector for the weak and vulnerable in society, as it removes any advantage held by a stronger aggressor. Victims who resist crime with a gun are only half as likely to be injured as those who put up no defense, and one fourth as likely to be injured as those resisting by other means. For centuries, the gun has been a family’s best defense against criminal attack, and the Second Amendment enshrines that essential safeguard in the Constitution. It is worth observing that “about half of all American homes contain a gun” and thus “burglars tend to avoid all occupied American homes.”

Andrew L. Schlafly
February 7, 2008
Brief for amicus curiae association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. in support of Respondent.
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacAAPS.pdf

Citing Miller for a proposition for which Miller does not stand, Petitioners make Miller falsely appear to establish a rule that it in fact does not, rendering the Second Amendment peculiar by defining “the people” to mean governmental entities. It is therefore critical that Second Amendment precedent be analyzed in a reasoned and rightful manner, and applied accordingly without any preconceptions.

Renee L. Giachino
February 11, 2008
Brief of amicus curiae Center for Individual Freedom in support of respondent in D.C. versus Heller.
[Sometime this month the Supreme Court is expected to announce it’s decision in this historic case. Until that announcement the QOTD will be from various briefs in the case.–Joe]

Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn’t have any innocent bystander.

Chris Rock
[I love sick humor.–Joe]