No. 08-1521
`
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`————
`OTIS MCDONALD, et al.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`CITY OF CHICAGO,
`Respondent.
`
`————
`On Writ of Certiorari to the
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Seventh Circuit
`————
`BRIEF FOR THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
`THE CITY OF CHICAGO, INSTITUTE OF
`MEDICINE OF CHICAGO, WAYMAN AFRICAN
`METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF
`CHICAGO, ILLINOIS COUNCIL AGAINST
`HANDGUN VIOLENCE, LEGAL COMMUNITY
`AGAINST VIOLENCE, VIOLENCE POLICY
`CENTER, STATES UNITED TO PREVENT GUN
`VIOLENCE, FREEDOM STATES ALLIANCE,
`CONNECTICUT AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE,
`MAINE CITIZENS AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE,
`CITIZENS FOR A SAFER MINNESOTA, OHIO
`COALITION AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE,
`WISCONSIN ANTI-VIOLENCE EFFORT
`EDUCATIONAL FUND, AND GUNFREEKIDS.ORG
`IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS CITY OF
`CHICAGO AND VILLAGE OF OAK PARK
`————
`CHARLES M. DYKE
`Counsel of Record
`YI-YI CHANG
`NIXON PEABODY LLP
`One Embarcadero Center
`18th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`January 6, 2010
`(415) 984-8200
`
`WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`————
`OTIS MCDONALD, et al.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`CITY OF CHICAGO,
`Respondent.
`
`————
`On Writ of Certiorari to the
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Seventh Circuit
`————
`BRIEF FOR THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
`THE CITY OF CHICAGO, INSTITUTE OF
`MEDICINE OF CHICAGO, WAYMAN AFRICAN
`METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF
`CHICAGO, ILLINOIS COUNCIL AGAINST
`HANDGUN VIOLENCE, LEGAL COMMUNITY
`AGAINST VIOLENCE, VIOLENCE POLICY
`CENTER, STATES UNITED TO PREVENT GUN
`VIOLENCE, FREEDOM STATES ALLIANCE,
`CONNECTICUT AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE,
`MAINE CITIZENS AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE,
`CITIZENS FOR A SAFER MINNESOTA, OHIO
`COALITION AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE,
`WISCONSIN ANTI-VIOLENCE EFFORT
`EDUCATIONAL FUND, AND GUNFREEKIDS.ORG
`IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS CITY OF
`CHICAGO AND VILLAGE OF OAK PARK
`————
`CHARLES M. DYKE
`Counsel of Record
`YI-YI CHANG
`NIXON PEABODY LLP
`One Embarcadero Center
`18th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`January 6, 2010
`(415) 984-8200
`
`WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................
`STATEMENT OF INTEREST ............................
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................
`ARGUMENT ........................................................
`I. THE SECOND AMENDMENT’S STRUC-
`TURE PRECLUDES
`ITS
`INCOR-
`PORATION. ..............................................
`II. THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DOES
`NOT SUPPORT INCORPORATION. ......
`III. EVEN IF THE COURT INCORPO-
`RATES THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND
`BEAR ARMS, THE RIGHT REMAINS
`SUBORDINATE TO THE GREATER
`RIGHT OF ALL INDIVIDUALS TO
`PERSONAL SECURITY. .........................
`A. States Always Have Exercised Their
`Police Power Over Arms, Including
`the Banning
`of Common Use
`Weapons. ..............................................
`B. The Court’s “Most Popular Weapon”
`Rationale in Heller is not a Workable
`Principle of Constitutional Law. .........
`1. Americans have not “overwhelm-
`ingly chosen” handguns for self-
`defense. ...........................................
`2. No meaningful data supports
`claims of defensive handgun use
`at levels equal to or in excess of
`violent criminal handgun use. .......
`
`(i)
`
`Page
`iii
`1
`2
`6
`
`6
`
`8
`
`11
`
`11
`
`21
`
`22
`
`29
`
`
`
`ii
`TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
`
`3. Popularity of firearm choice is not
`a workable principle of constitu-
`tional law. .......................................
`CONCLUSION ....................................................
`APPENDIX
`Descriptions of Amici Curiae Organizations ..
`
`Page
`
`31
`32
`
`1a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`15
`19
`19
`19
`
`CASES
`Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (1 Heisk.) 165
`(1871) ......................................................... 8, 15
`Arnold v. City of Cleveland, 616 N.E.2d
`163 (Ohio 1993) ......................................... 17, 19
`Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (1 Hum.) 154
`(1840) .........................................................
`Burton v. Sills, 53 N.J. 86 (N.J. 1968) .........
`Carfield v. State, 649 P.2d 865 (Wyo. 1982)
`Carson v. State, 247 S.E.2d 68 (Ga. 1978) ...
`City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41
`(1999) .........................................................
`City of Princeton v. Buckner, 377 S.E.2d
`139 (W. Va. 1988) ......................................
`City of Tucson v. Rineer, 971 P.2d 207
`(Ariz. Ct. App. 1998) .................................
`Darling v. Warden of City Prison, 154 A.D.
`413 (N.Y. App. Div. 1913) .........................
`District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct.
`2783 (2008) ............................................... passim
`Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968) ..
`9
`Dycus v. State, 74 Tenn. 584 (1880) .............
`15
`Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow,
`7
`542 U.S. 1 (2004) .......................................
`English v. State, 35 Tex. 473 (1872) ............ 15, 16
`Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 (1951) .....
`6
`Grimm v. New York, 289 N.Y.S.2d 358
`(N.Y. 1968) ................................................
`Herring v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 695
`(2009) .........................................................
`Hilly v. Portland, 582 A.2d 1213 (Me.
`1990) ..........................................................
`Hoskins v. State, 449 So. 2d 1269 (Ala.
`Crim. App. 1984) .......................................
`
`10
`
`19
`
`19
`
`16
`
`19
`
`33
`
`19
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page
`
`Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat) 1
`(1820) .......................................................
`In re Application of Atkinson, 291 N.W.2d
`396 (Minn. 1980) .......................................
`In re Cheney, 90 Cal. 617 (1891) ..................
`In re Wolstenholme, 1992 Del. Super. LEXIS
`341 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 20, 1992) ..........
`James v. State, 731 So.2d 1135 (Miss.
`1999) ..........................................................
`Jones v. City of Little Rock, 862 S.W.2d
`273 (Ark. 1993) ..........................................
`Kalodimos v. Morton Grove, 470 N.E.2d
`266 (Ill. 1984) ............................................
`Masters v. State, 653 S.W.2d 944 (Tex. Ct.
`App. 1983) .................................................
`Matthews v. State, 148 N.E.2d 334 (Ind.
`1958) ..........................................................
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470
`(1996) ........................................................
`Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110
`(1989) .........................................................
`Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) ......
`Morley v. City of Phila. Licenses & Inspec-
`tions Unit, 844 A.2d 637 (Pa. Commw.
`Ct. 2004) ....................................................
`Mosby v. Devine, 851 A.2d 1031 (R.I. 2004)
`New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S.
`262 (1932) ..................................................
`North Carolina v. Fennell, 95 N.C. App.
`140 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989) ...........................
`NRA v. Chicago, 567 F.3d 856 (7th Cir.
`2009) ..........................................................
`
`
`8
`
`19
`16
`
`19
`
`19
`
`19
`
`19
`
`19
`
`19
`
`20
`
`10
`20
`
`19
`19
`
`17
`
`19
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page
`
`9
`
`Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937),
`overruled on other grounds by Benton v.
`Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969) ................
`Parham v. Commonwealth, 1996 Va. App.
`LEXIS 758 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 1996) ....
`Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S.
`49 (1973) ....................................................
`People v. Swint, 572 N.W. 666 (Mich. Ct.
`App. 1997) .................................................
`Posey v. Commonwealth, 185 S.W.3d 170
`(Ky. 2006) ..................................................
`Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898
`(1997) .........................................................
`Rabbitt v. Leonard, 413 A.2d 489 (Conn.
`1979) ..........................................................
`Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897) .
`Robertson v. City & County of Denver, 874
`P.2d 325 (Colo. 1994) ................................ 18, 19
`State ex rel. Oklahoma State Bureau of
`Investigation v. Warren, 75 P.2d 900
`(Okla. 1998) ...............................................
`State v. Cole, 665 N.W.2d 328 (Wis. 2003) ..
`State v. Comeau, 448 N.W.2d 595 (Neb.
`1989) ..........................................................
`State v. Dees, 669 P.2d 261 (N.M. Ct. App.
`1983) ..........................................................
`State v. Duranleau, 260 A.2d 383 (Vt.
`1969) ..........................................................
`State v. Hamlin, 497 So. 2d 1369 (La.
`1986) ..........................................................
`State v. Hart, 157 P.2d 72 (Idaho 1945) ......
`State v. Mendoza, 82 Haw. 143 (Haw.
`1996) ..........................................................
`
`19
`
`20
`
`19
`
`19
`
`13
`
`19
`14
`
`19
`19
`
`19
`
`19
`
`19
`
`19
`19
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`
`
`Page
`
`19
`
`19
`19
`19
`19
`15
`
`State v. Ricehill, 415 N.W.2d 481 (N.D.
`1987) ..........................................................
`State v. Rivera, 853 P.2d 126 (N.M. Ct.
`App. 1993) .................................................
`State v. Rupe, 683 P.2d 571 (Wash. 1984) ...
`State v. Rupp, 282 N.W.2d 125 (Iowa 1979) ..
`State v. White, 253 S.W. 724 (Mo. 1923) ......
`State v. Wilburn, 66 Tenn. 57 (1872) ...........
`Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1
`(1949) .........................................................
`United States v. Carlton, 512 U.S. 26
`(1994) .........................................................
`United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174
`(1939) ......................................................... 2, 7
`
`6
`
`10
`
`18
`
`CONSTITUTION, STATUTES, LEGISLATIVE
`AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS
`1989 Mass. Acts 596, §§ 1-7 .........................
`Act of Apr. 21, 1818, ch. CCXXII, 1818
`8
`N.Y. Laws 210 ...........................................
`Cal. Penal Code § 12125 ............................... 8, 17
`Cal. Penal Code § 12275 ...............................
`18
`Cal. Penal Code § 12275.5(b) ........................
`17
`Cal. Penal Code § 245 ...................................
`8
`Chicago, Ill., Code § 8-20-030(h) ..................
`18
`Chicago, Ill., Code § 8-24-025 .......................
`18
`Cleveland, Ohio, Code §§ 628.01-628.99 .....
`18
`Columbus, Ohio, Code § 2323.31 .................
`18
`Columbus, Ohio, Code § 545.04(a) ...............
`18
`Columbus, Ohio, Code §§ 2323.11(L)–(M) ...
`18
`Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53-202a–53-202o ..........
`18
`Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 134-1 .......................
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`
`
`Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 134-4 .......................
`Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 134-8 .......................
`Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 121 ...................
`Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 122 ...................
`Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 123 ...................
`Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 131 ...................
`Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 131M ................
`Md. Code Ann. §§ 4-301–4-306.....................
`N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-1w ...........................
`N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-5 .............................
`N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:58-12 ...........................
`N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:58-13 ...........................
`N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:58-5 .............................
`N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00(2) ..........................
`N.Y. Penal Law § 265.02(7) ..........................
`N.Y. Penal Law § 265.10 ..............................
`New York, N.Y., Admin. Code § 10-301(16) ..
`New York, N.Y., Admin. Code § 10-303.1 ....
`New York, N.Y., Rules tit. 38, § 17-01 .........
`U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 16 ........................
`U.S. Const., amend. X ..................................
`Va. Code Ann. § 44-54.12 .............................
`
`BOOKS
`Massad F. Ayoob, In the Gravest Extreme:
`The Role of the Firearm in Personal Pro-
`tection (Police Bookshelf 1980) .................
`Chris Bird, The Concealed Handgun Ma-
`nual: How to Choose, Carry and Shoot a
`Gun in Self-Defense (3d ed. 2002) ............
`Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of
`England 143 (Lawbook Exch., reprint
`2003) (Thomas M. Cooley ed., 1884) ........
`
`
`
`Page
`18
`18
`18
`18
`18
`18
`18
`18
`18
`18
`18
`18
`18
`18
`18
`18
`18
`18
`18
`7
`13
`8
`
`25
`
`24
`
`14
`
`
`
`viii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page
`
`14
`
`9
`
`9
`
`17
`
`13
`
`William Blackstone, Commentaries on the
`Laws of England 120 (Univ. of Chicago
`Press 1979) (1765) ..................................... 12, 13
`Bill Clede, The Practical Pistol Manual
`(Jameson Books 1997) .............................. 25, 26
`Thomas M. Cooley, A Treatise on the Con-
`stitutional Limitations Which Rest Upon
`the Legislative Power of the United
`States of the American Union (Lawbook
`Exch., reprint 1999) (1868) .......................
`Saul Cornell, A Well Regulated Militia
`(Oxford U. Press 2006)..............................
`Clayton E. Cramer, Armed America (Nel-
`son Current 2006) .....................................
`Robert R. Dykstra, The Cattle Towns (U.
`Nebraska Press 1968) ...............................
`The Federalist No. 17 (Alexander Hamil-
`ton) (Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961) ................
`David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public
`Health (U. Mich. Press 2004).................... 30, 31
`Wayne R. LaFave, 2 Substantive Criminal
`Law § 10.4 (2d ed. 2003) ...........................
`John Locke, Second Treatise of Govern-
`ment § 13 (C.B. Macpherson ed., Hackett
`Publ’g 1980) (1764) ...................................
`Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation,
`Federal Courts and the Law (Amy
`Gutmann ed., Princeton U. Press 1997) ..
`Christopher G. Tiedeman, A Treatise on
`the Limitations of Police Power in the
`United States Considered from both a
`Civil and Criminal Stand-point (Law-
`book Exch., reprint 2001) (1886) ..............
`
`8
`
`12
`
`5-6
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`
`
`Page
`
`28
`
`12
`
`“Guns and Gun
`Garen Wintemute,
`Violence,” in The Crime Drop in America
`(Alfred Blumstein & Joel Wallman eds.,
`2006) ..........................................................
`Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the Amer-
`ican Republic 1776-1787 (U.N.C. Press
`1969, 1998) ................................................
`Charles G. Worman, Firearms in Ameri-
`can History
`(Westholme Publishing
`2007) .......................................................... 9-10
`JOURNALS
`Deborah Azrael & David Hemenway, In
`the Safety of Your Own Home: Results
`from a National Survey on Gun Use at
`Home, 50 Social Science & Medicine 285
`(2000) .........................................................
`Philip J. Cook et al., The Gun Debate’s
`New Mythical Number: How Many De-
`fensive Uses Per Year?, 16 J. Policy
`Analysis & Mgmt. 463 (1997) ...................
`David Hemenway & Deborah Azrael, The
`Relative Frequency of Offensive and
`Defensive Gun Uses: Results from a Na-
`tional Survey, 15 Violence & Victims 257
`(2000) .........................................................
`David Hemenway et al., Gun Use in the
`United States: Results from Two Na-
`tional Surveys, 6 Injury Prevention 263
`(2000) .........................................................
`Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz, Armed Resis-
`tance to Crime: The Prevalence and
`Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, 86 J.
`Crim. L. & Criminology 150 (1995) .......... 29-30
`
`29
`
`30
`
`29
`
`29
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`
`
`Page
`
`30
`
`25
`
`4
`
`26
`
`31
`
`27
`
`32
`
`Jens Ludwig, Gun Self-Defense and Deter-
`rence, 27 Crime & Just. 363 (2000) ..........
`Andrew J. McClurg, Child Access Preven-
`tion Laws: A Common Sense Approach
`to Gun Control, 18 St. Louis U. Pub. L.
`Rev. 47 (1999)............................................
`J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Of Guns, Abor-
`tions and the Unraveling Rule of Law,
`95 Va. L. Rev. 253 (2009) ..........................
`
`OTHER SOURCES
`85-Year-Old Granny Pulls Gun On In-
`truder, Makes Him Call 911, The Pitts-
`burgh Channel, Aug. 21, 2008, available
`at http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/
`news/17232825/detail.html?rss=pit&psp
`=news.........................................................
`Kevin Bohn, Gun Sales Surge After Ob-
`ama’s Election, CNN.com, Nov. 11, 2008,
`available at http://www.cnn.com/2008/
`CRIME/11/11/obama.gun.sales/ ...............
`Burying Crime in Chicago, Newsweek,
`May 16, 1983 .............................................
`Chris Christian, Smith & Wesson Model
`500
`.50-Cal. Magnum Is
`the King
`of Handguns, Popular Mechanics,
`Sept. 2003, available at http://popular
`mechanics.com/outdoors/sports/1277336.
`html ...............................................................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xi
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page
`
`32
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Philip J. Cook & Jens Ludwig, Guns in
`America: National Survey on Private
`Ownership and Use of Firearms, Na-
`tional Institute of Justice, Research in
`Brief, May 1997, available at http://
`www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476 ................. 22, 23
`Philip J. Cook & Jens Ludwig, Guns in
`America: Results of a Comprehensive
`National Survey on Firearms Ownership
`and Use
`(Police Foundation 1996),
`available at http://www.policefoundation.
`org/pdf/GunsinAmerica. pdf ....................... 22, 23
`Gun Ownership by State, Wash. Post,
`May 26, 2006, available at http://www.
`washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/
`interactives/guns/ ownership.html............
`“Home Defense question DO YOU HAVE
`A BATHROOM GUN”, http://www.
`thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=7560
`(last visited Dec. 30, 2009) .......................
`Doug Little, What is the best home defense
`shotgun for women?, Arizona CCW Per-
`mit Website, June 3, 2008, available at
`http://arizonaccwpermit.com/2008/06/03/
`what-is-the-best-home-defense-shotgun-
`for-women/ .................................................
`Dick Metcalf, Smith & Wesson’s Monster
`Magnum, Shooting Times, available at
`http://www.shootingtimes.com/handgun_
`reviews/monster_1103/ (last visited Dec.
`30, 2009) .................................................... 31-32
`
`
`
`xii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Craig Perkins, “National Crime Victimiza-
`tion Survey, 1993-2001: Weapon Use and
`Violent Crime,” Bureau of Justice Statis-
`tics Special Report (Sept. 2003) ................
`Tom W. Smith, National Opinion Research
`Center at the University of Chicago,
`Public Attitudes Towards the Regulation
`of Firearms, April 2007, available at
`http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/
`07/pdf/070410.guns.norc. pdf ....................
`Bob Warner, Criminal Math: In 25 Years,
`One Other City Has Had Crime Counts
`Tossed/Errors Uncommon, Phila. Daily
`News, Oct. 21, 1997 ..................................
`Jeff Wiehe, Fears Drive Hordes to Gun
`Shops, Journal Gazette, Apr. 5, 2009,
`available at http://www.journalgazette.
`net/article/20090405/LOCAL/304059928 ...
`
`Page
`
`28
`
`22
`
`27
`
`31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF INTEREST
`With the written consent of the parties, the
`following amici curiae submit this brief pursuant to
`Rule 37 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the
`United States.1
` Amici curiae are the Board of
`Education of the City of Chicago and the non-profit
`organizations Institute of Medicine of Chicago,
`Wayman African Methodist Episcopal Church of
`Chicago, Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence,
`Legal Community Against Violence, Violence Policy
`Center, States United to Prevent Gun Violence,
`Freedom States Alliance, Connecticut Against Gun
`Violence, Maine Citizens Against Gun Violence,
`Citizens For A Safer Minnesota, Ohio Coalition
`Against Gun Violence, Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort
`Educational Fund, and Gunfreekids.org.
`Amici are governmental, civic and religious organ-
`izations actively engaged in efforts to reduce hand-
`gun violence and the destructive impact it has on the
`local communities and urban centers they serve. A
`brief description of each organization’s mission is set
`forth in the Appendix. Amici submit this brief to
`assist the Court in evaluating the merits, and
`wisdom, of potentially making the Second Amend-
`ment applicable to the states.
`
`
`1 All parties have consented to the filing of amicus briefs in
`support of a party in this case and copies of their letters have
`been filed with this Court. Counsel of record for all parties
`received timely notice of the intention of amici curiae to file this
`brief. No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in
`part, and no counsel or party made a monetary contribution
`intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. No
`person other than amici curiae or their counsel made a mon-
`etary contribution to its preparation or submission.
`
`
`
`2
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`The right to arms, even for personal self-defense,
`is fundamentally different from all other liberties
`retained by individuals in society, because of the
`inherent lethality of firearms. We tolerate few
`restrictions on the right to free speech because of its
`salutary effects, and because “sticks and stones may
`break my bones but words can never hurt me,” as the
`children’s rhyme goes. Guns, on the other hand, will
`kill you.
`1. The structure of the Second Amendment pre-
`vents incorporation against the states of the right
`to keep and bear arms articulated in District of
`Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008). The
`reason the Second Amendment was added to the
`Constitution was to prevent the federal government
`from destroying the militia, a body concurrently
`governed by the states and which, when “well-
`regulated” (i.e., composed of men trained to arms),
`stood as a check against federal tyranny. The
`Amendment accomplished this by “confer[ring] an
`individual right to keep and bear arms (although only
`arms that ‘have some reasonable relationship to the
`preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia’)”
`and only “arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful
`purposes like self-defense.” Heller, 128 S. Ct. at
`2814, 2815 (quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U.S.
`174, 178, 179 (1939)). It would be illogical to use the
`Fourteenth Amendment to turn such a federalism
`provision against the states.
`2. Petitioners fail to show that the Second Amend-
`ment is incorporated under the Due Process Clause of
`
`
`
`3
`the Fourteenth Amendment.2
` Under that clause, a
`constitutionally enumerated right must be essential
`to ordered liberty to be incorporated. We have a long
`history in this country of state and local legislatures
`exercising their exclusive police powers to ban arms
`in common use that states and cities determine pose
`too great a danger to public safety to be allowed. The
`exercise of these powers has only increased since the
`founding.
`It seems implausible that the Second and Four-
`teenth Amendments have been understood all along
`to confer a fundamental right to have any weapon an
`individual prefers merely because the weapon is in
`common use. Rather, history supports that the states
`always have retained their police power to ban
`inappropriate common-use weapons (including pistols),
`as long as access to other weapons sufficient for
`the asserted need – for example, self-defense – is
`preserved. This suggests perhaps there is a funda-
`mental (though unenumerated) right to self-defense,
`but that the right to any particular arm is not
`fundamental, unless shown to be essential to the
`ability to exercise the right of self-defense.
`Petitioners’ position would require the Court to
`find that the Fourteenth Amendment was understood
`to elevate all common-use weapons beyond the reach
`of any legislative body’s power to ban. This is not
`a plausible description of the country’s regulatory
`
`2 We fully agree with Respondents’ argument that the Second
`Amendment is not incorporated by the Privileges or Immunities
`Clause, and add only that adoption of the virtually unlimited
`natural-law-rights definition of “privileges and immunities” ad-
`vanced by Petitioners, see Petitioner’s Brief at 6, 17, would
`effectively replace elected legislatures with an imperial and
`unelected judiciary. This Court should reject the invitation.
`
`
`
`4
`history of arms and, if followed to its logical conclu-
`sion, would undermine the ability of democratic
`government to preserve order and, ultimately,
`persevere. To the extent Petitioners really just want
`to replace local legislatures with the federal judiciary
`in this area of the police power, they are asking the
`Court, unwisely, to enter unbounded territory. See J.
`Harvie Wilkinson III, Of Guns, Abortions and the
`Unraveling Rule of Law, 95 Va. L. Rev. 253 (2009).
`3. Even if the Court incorporates the right to keep
`and bear arms against the states, the right must be
`subject to normal police-power regulation and remain
`subordinate – as are all rights – to the greater right
`of “personal security” that all individuals possess in
`society. That is how Blackstone understood the right
`to arms for self-defense, and that is how it has been
`understood in the states since the founding. In the
`event of incorporation, this Court’s First Amendment
`obscenity jurisprudence provides a useful analogue
`and affirms that the determination of what are
`appropriate common-use weapons ought to remain a
`local matter.
`The Court in Heller struck down the DC handgun
`ban, but did not hold that a right to handguns is
`reasonably necessary for effective self-defense in the
`home. Rather it struck the federal ban because the
`ordinance “amounts to a prohibition of an entire class
`of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American
`society for that lawful purpose. . . . Whatever the
`reason, handguns are the most popular weapon
`chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home,
`and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”
`Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2817-18. There are two basic
`problems with applying a uniform proscription against
`handgun bans to the states.
`
`
`
`5
`First, to the extent the Court is suggesting that
`American society has overwhelmingly chosen hand-
`guns for self-defense in the home, that premise is
`false. Only about 10.1% of all American adults have
`one or more handguns primarily for self-defense or as
`their sole firearm(s) (i.e., the only firearm available
`for self-defense), and only about 10.3% of American
`adults have one or more long guns primarily for self-
`defense or as their sole firearm(s) (i.e., the only
`firearm available for self-defense). It is not true that
`Americans overwhelmingly keep any firearm, much
`less handguns, to defend themselves – in the home or
`anyplace else. There are many negative externalities
`that handgun ownership visits on the community.
`Among other things, handguns are used offensively
`seven times for every one time they are used defen-
`sively.
`Second, firearm choice among the fraction of Amer-
`ican adults who have handguns is not a workable
`basis for examining state laws. If popularity of a
`weapon is the standard, does that mean the federal
`judiciary can strike down the assault-weapon bans in
`place in seven states because, following the election
`and inauguration of President Obama, assault wea-
`pons apparently were purchased in other states in
`large numbers in fear of a federal ban? Does the
`Constitution require us to take a poll to determine
`which weapons are in common use and which are
`most preferred? The results vary greatly by region,
`of course.
`Control of arms to prevent crime and secure the
`entire community has always been primarily a mat-
`ter of state and local action. Cf. Antonin Scalia, A
`Matter of Interpretation, Federal Courts and the Law
`136-137 n.13 (Amy Gutmann ed., Princeton U. Press
`
`
`
`6
`1997) (“Of course, properly understood, [the Second
`Amendment] is no limitation upon arms control by
`the states.”). The Court’s “most popular weapon”
`rationale for overturning the federal handgun ban
`should not be expanded to preclude state and local
`legislatures from acting under their police power to
`prevent crime and protect everyone’s right to personal
`security. As Justice Jackson wisely cautioned 60
`years ago in a case striking down an incitement-to-
`violence conviction on First Amendment grounds:
`“There is danger that, if the Court does not temper
`its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it
`will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a
`suicide pact.” Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337
`U.S. 1, 37 (1949) (Jackson, J., dissenting). He was
`vindicated two years later when the Court upheld an
`incitement conviction, recognizing that even broad
`First Amendment rights must yield to clear and pre-
`sent dangers to public safety. Feiner v. New York,
`340 U.S. 315 (1951).
`
`ARGUMENT
`I. THE SECOND AMENDMENT’S STRUC-
`TURE PRECLUDES ITS INCORPORA-
`TION.
`
`The Second Amendment’s “prefatory clause” makes
`plain that the Amendment was added to the Con-
`stitution to ensure the preservation of a “well-
`regulated militia.” See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2799-
`2802. It accomplished this by “confer[ring] an
`individual right to keep and bear arms (although only
`arms that ‘have some reasonable relationship to the
`preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia’)”
`and only “arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful
`purposes like self-defense,” id. at 2814, 2815 (quoting
`
`
`
`7
`United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 179
`(1939)). The states exercised control over the militia
`concurrently with the federal government, and they
`had exclusive control over training and officering the
`militia within their borders. They also governed the
`militia when it was not in actual service of the
`federal government.3
` The “well-regulated militia” in
`the Second Amendment’s “prefatory clause” is the
`militia trained to arms. Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2800.
`The founders protected “a well-regulated militia”
`because that institution rendered large standing
`armies unnecessary and would provide the states
`with the means for resisting federal tyranny. Id. at
`2800-01.
`Because the Second Amendment plainly was in-
`tended to protect the state militias from disarma-
`ment, it would be illogical to turn such a federalism
`provision against the states. Doing so would mean
`that the Fourteenth Amendment was understood to
`grant federal judges final authority to decide whether
`a state improperly has interfered with that state’s
`ability to keep federal tyranny in check. There is no
`evidence to support such an understanding. Cf. Elk
`Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1,
`45 (2004) (Thomas, J., concurring) (arguing for
`“unincorporation” of First Amendment establishment
`clause because it was federalism-based provision
`designed to allow states to establish religions without
`interference).
`
`
`3 See U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 16; Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S.
`(5 Wheat) 1, 24 (1820) (opinion of Washington, J.); id. at 37
`(opinion of Johnson, J.); id. at 50 (Story, J., dissenting on other
`grounds).
`
`
`
`8
`Insofar as the “right to keep and bear arms”
`articulated in Heller protects the keeping and bearing
`of weapons for any other lawful purpose, including
`self-defense, the right historically has been signifi-
`cantly regulated by the states under their police
`power. See infra pp. 11-20. Such regulation includes
`the banning of some “common use” weapons, e.g.,
`Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (1 Heisk.) 165, 186 (1871)
`(upholding legislature’s banning of, inter alia, non-
`military revolvers and dirks); Cal. Penal Code
`§ 12125 (banning junk handguns); the determination
`of what purposes are lawful, e.g., Cal. Penal Code
`§ 245 (punishing more harshly the use of a firearm to
`commit specified offenses than commission of same
`offense without firearm); the allowance and deter-
`mination of the scope of the common law right of
`self-defense, e.g., Wayne R. LaFave, 2 Substantive
`Criminal Law § 10.4 (2d ed. 2003) (discussing law of
`self defense and duty to retreat); and specification of
`and control over arms for state militia purposes, e.g.,
`Va. Code Ann. § 44-54.12 (providing that “[m]embers
`of the Virginia State Defense Force shall not be
`armed with firearms during the performance of
`training duty or state active duty, except under
`circumstances and in instances authorized by the
`Governor”); Act of Apr. 21, 1818, ch. CCXXII, 1818
`N.Y. Laws 210, 211. It would be nonsensical for
`the Court to begin applying a right whose scope
`is defined under state
`law against the states
`themselves.
`
`II. THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE DOES NOT
`SUPPORT INCORPORATION.
`
`The Second Amendment right to keep and bear
`arms articulated in Heller does not meet the Due
`Process Clause test for incorporation under the
`
`
`
`9
`Fourteenth Amendment. To be incorporated, and
`therefore applied against the states, a right enumer-
`ated in the Bill of Rights must be so essential it is
`“implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” Palko v.
`Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), overruled on
`other grounds by Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784
`(1969), or “necessary to an Anglo-American regime of
`ordered liberty,” Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145,
`150 n.14 (1968). See also Respondents’ Br. at 8-10.
`In determining whether a right is “implicit” in the
`concept of ordered liberty, the Co
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
