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]

When viewed from a national perspective, the right to keep and bear arms is not an archaic right. The right to arms is deeply rooted in our nation’s tradition and history. The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791. The earliest guarantees to arms were adopted in 1776 by Pennsylvania and North Carolina. The most recent guarantee was adopted by Wisconsin in 1998. Since 1945, twenty one (21) states have adopted or readopted the right to bear arms in their state constitutions. Presently, forty-four (44) states have a guarantee to arms. The people have spoken in support of the right to arms. It is a mainstream right that is still valued in the 21st Century, and it is a vital part of the Constitution.

Robert Dowlut
February 2008
Brief for amicus curiae American Legislative Exchange Council in support of respondent.
[Only eight more days until oral arguments. This brief includes all the state constitution provisions for the right to keep and bear arms. A nice reference.–Joe]

Of course, we also urge the Court to reject the invitation of Petitioners to read a fundamental Constitutional right stated in plain English in the text out of the Constitution altogether. The American people can read, and they can see that unlike some of the other rights found by the Court on the basis of complex reasoning, the Constitutional text forthrightly promises that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” No amount of artful linguistic acrobatics or fanciful historical tales can rub those plain words out of the text. We respectfully submit that the rights clearly stated in The Bill of Rights should be read broadly and vigorously enforced, rather than minimized to suit a particular ideology.

Peter J. Ferrara
February 2008
Amicus curiae brief of the American Civil Rights Union in support of respondents.
[Only nine more days until oral arguments.–Joe]