Summaries of Heller Amici Briefs

[ELB]

At the Volokh Conspiracy, Dave Kopel has been summarizing the amici briefs submitted in support of Heller. So far he's done about half a dozen. If you go to the link* I supply below, you will get all of them on one webpage, and presumably as he summarizes more, they will be added to this link).

http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1202366725.shtml

Bob Leibowitz has also been providing summaries, so you may wish to check his blog also:

http://www.canticle4leibowitz.com/

Mr. Kopel gives more of an interpretive or narrative summary, i.e. he says in his own words what he thinks the brief says. Mr. Leibowitz uses lots of excerpts to illustrate what the briefs are about.

Enjoy.

elb

*The Volokh Conspiracy blog has a feature that links together related posts, and if you click on it, you get a page like the one I supplied the link to. If the link I supplied blows up for some reason, just go to the Volokh blog, find a David Kopel post about Heller, and look for the "Related Posts" link at the bottom of that post.

[Kalrog]

Great work, ELB! Nice find.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Quote from the brief filed by the SAF.

Even more important, a significant gap has developed between civilian and military small arms. Eighteenth century Americans commonly used the same arms for civilian and military purposes, but today’s infantry and organized militia are equipped with an array of highly lethal weaponry that civilians do not employ for self defense or other important lawful purposes. The Constitution does not require this Court to blind itself to that post-Miller reality, or to hold that the civilian population has a right to keep every weapon that the militia can expect to find useful if called to active duty.

Good Grief! Is the SAF saying that "reasonable restrictions" might be constitutional? That the 2A doesn't protect the right to keep and bear RPG's, "ma dueces", various crew served weapons, MP-5's sold out of vending machines at airport loading gates, etc.?

I mean, that's what it sounds like in the above quote.

So how far "off the reservation" can I be if I'm somewhere near being on the same page as the SAF?

BTW, I have been a contributor to that fine organization for many years now. Not only do they support gun rights, but contributions are TAX DEDUCTIBLE.

You gotta love that.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Quote from the NRA's brief.

2. In arguing against strict scrutiny for laws infringing Second Amendment rights, various amici supporting Petitioners contend that a lower standard of review is necessary in light of the scores of federal and state laws and regulations concerning possession of firearms such as sawed-off shotguns; the possession of firearms by felons, the insane, or minors; or the use of arms in the commission of a crime. See, e.g., Chemerinsky Br. at 7–10; cf. Brief of the American Bar Association at 11–17 (listing various gun control laws and warning, without explanation, that “it is more than plausible� that “many� would be repealed or revised). The obvious in terrorem purpose of this argument is to suggest that if the Court holds that laws burdening the fundamental right to keep and bear arms are subject to strict scrutiny, governments may be powerless to stop insane convicted felons from using sawed-off shotguns to commit crimes in this very Court, or even to punish them in the aftermath.

I swear guys, I did not write this brief, or any part of it.

I'm just trying to figure out if the NRA's legal team has been reading my stuff.

[ELB]

Mr. Kopel has another post up with a summary of and link to a brief filed by private security associations. The associations basically argue that the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department is so corrupt and incompetent that the only way citizens can hope to be safe is to defend themselves with firearms; and that those who for whatever reason can't or won't bear arms themselves, hire private security. Of course the mayor, thru the MPD, regulates the private security companies, and seems to delight in finding reasons to delay, deny, and even arrest private security officers.

Anyway, here is a quote from the brief describing the MPD:

According to the 2004 Uniform Crime Report,
on a per capita basis the District ranked first in
Murder, Violent Crime, Robbery, Aggravated Assault
and Motor Vehicle Theft. D.C. ranked second in
Property Crime, 16th in Forcible Rape, 21st in Burglary
and 22nd in Larceny-theft.

This from a department that has more officers per capita than any other.

This one really got to me:

Partially in response to the need to hire new
officers and partially in response to challenges to the
racial composition of the force, Mayor Marion Barry
abandoned any pretense of “quality over quantity�
and ordered sweeping changes to the academy entrance
process: the passing score on the police entrance
exam was lowered to 35 out of 80; rather than
filling the academy class roster according to who
scored highest on the entrance exam, the roster
would now be filled by lottery, without regard to exam
scores.21 In describing Mayor Barry’s and Human
Rights Director Anita Shelton’s hiring of police officers,
the Washington Post editorialized, “They are
confused and making bad decisions.�22
These bad decisions were compounded over the
next decade. Noting that police recruits scored poorly
in reading comprehension, the police academy instituted
a remedial reading class to rehabilitate the
recruits. Mayor Barry ordered the class terminated,
fearing it reflected badly upon the District’s school
system.23 English language classes for non-native
English speaking recruits were terminated.24 The
MPD leadership opposed national accreditation
standards for their department.25 Classes on Constitutional
and legal principals were taught not by a
lawyer but by a police officer who had not been in a
courtroom in a decade.26 Hours of instruction were
cut, and an academy designed to process 300 recruits
per year processed 1,500 in two years.27 Driving
instruction was cut in half or eliminated altogether.28

I've always known the D.C. city government was incredibly corrupt and incompetent, and by extension, the police, but to see it detailed like that...horrors.

elb

[KBCraig]

Quote from the brief filed by the SAF.

Even more important, a significant gap has developed between civilian and military small arms. Eighteenth century Americans commonly used the same arms for civilian and military purposes, but today’s infantry and organized militia are equipped with an array of highly lethal weaponry that civilians do not employ for self defense or other important lawful purposes. The Constitution does not require this Court to blind itself to that post-Miller reality, or to hold that the civilian population has a right to keep every weapon that the militia can expect to find useful if called to active duty.

Good Grief! Is the SAF saying that "reasonable restrictions" might be constitutional?

I don't believe so. The Miller test is that to be protected, a firearm must be in "common use", and be suitable for militia. I believe they're pointing out that the Court can break free from the "common use" test, and just skip straight to military usefulness.

I've only read what you quoted, so I could be all wrong.

[jimlongley]

I don't believe so. The Miller test is that to be protected, a firearm must be in "common use", and be suitable for militia. I believe they're pointing out that the Court can break free from the "common use" test, and just skip straight to military usefulness.

I've only read what you quoted, so I could be all wrong.

So M2 and full auto WOULD be protected, right? Along with the 20mm that I remember so fondly from my Navy days? No, wait, the 20mm is not in common use any more is it, so a 37mm would just have to do.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Quote from the brief filed by the SAF.

Even more important, a significant gap has developed between civilian and military small arms. Eighteenth century Americans commonly used the same arms for civilian and military purposes, but today’s infantry and organized militia are equipped with an array of highly lethal weaponry that civilians do not employ for self defense or other important lawful purposes. The Constitution does not require this Court to blind itself to that post-Miller reality, or to hold that the civilian population has a right to keep every weapon that the militia can expect to find useful if called to active duty.

Good Grief! Is the SAF saying that "reasonable restrictions" might be constitutional?

I don't believe so. The Miller test is that to be protected, a firearm must be in "common use", and be suitable for militia. I believe they're pointing out that the Court can break free from the "common use" test, and just skip straight to military usefulness.

I've only read what you quoted, so I could be all wrong.

I read it differently.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I don't believe so. The Miller test is that to be protected, a firearm must be in "common use", and be suitable for militia. I believe they're pointing out that the Court can break free from the "common use" test, and just skip straight to military usefulness.

I've only read what you quoted, so I could be all wrong.

So M2 and full auto WOULD be protected, right? Along with the 20mm that I remember so fondly from my Navy days? No, wait, the 20mm is not in common use any more is it, so a 37mm would just have to do.

Not the way I read it. Look at the section I highlighted in bold below. Also, please note that this is the SAF's brief, so supposedly represents their position on this matter, which was the whole point of my post.

Even more important, a significant gap has developed between civilian and military small arms. Eighteenth century Americans commonly used the same arms for civilian and military purposes, but today’s infantry and organized militia are equipped with an array of highly lethal weaponry that civilians do not employ for self defense or other important lawful purposes. The Constitution does not require this Court to blind itself to that post-Miller reality, or to hold that the civilian population has a right to keep every weapon that the militia can expect to find useful if called to active duty.

[KD5NRH]

Not the way I read it. Look at the section I highlighted in bold below. Also, please note that this is the SAF's brief, so supposedly represents their position on this matter, which was the whole point of my post.

today’s infantry and organized militia are equipped with an array of highly lethal weaponry that civilians do not employ[/b]

Highly lethal, as opposed to only somewhat lethal is the key here; if we define, say, a wiffle bat as a minimum standard of lethality, then any weapon that doesn't kill someone deader than they would be if beaten to death with a wiffle bat certainly must be acceptable.

Now that's a reasonable restriction I'd consider.

[KBCraig]

So M2 and full auto WOULD be protected, right? Along with the 20mm that I remember so fondly from my Navy days? No, wait, the 20mm is not in common use any more is it, so a 37mm would just have to do.

Sounds "reasonable" to me.

[KBCraig]

I've only read what you quoted, so I could be all wrong.

I read it differently.

Without context, it's just too little to discern SAF's intent. It was just last night that I got around to reading Respondent's brief (trying to not fall asleep in the tub), so I haven't had a chance to read the other briefs, including this one. I'm not arguing with your conclusion, just pointing out that this short passage doesn't tell us much.

Kevin

[ELB]

If you clicked on the link to Dave Kopel's Amici summaries that I provided above wHen I first posted it, you may wish to do so again -- he has added several more summaries, and the same link will take you to the previous ones and the new ones, all on the same page. Here it is again:

http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1202366725.shtml

Of interest to me is a brief that Mr. Kopel wrote on behalf of a number of law enforcement groups. His summary lists some of them as:

The Independence Institute brief is joined by a broad coalition of law enforcement: the Maryland State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police (by far the largest rank-and-file police organization in Maryland), 29 of California’s District Attorneys, the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association, the Texas Police Chiefs Association, the Southern States Police Benevolent Association, and many others.

Notably, the lead amici in the brief are the two national organizations of police firearms instructors, the International Law Enforcement Educators & Trainers Association (ILEETA) and the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors (IALEFI). The brief explains how widespread civilian ownership of handguns contributes to the efficiency and success of police firearms training.

Hmmm, I don't see the International Association of Chiefs of Police or the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department in the list. Strange that, hmmm?

I haven't read the brief myself yet, but I will be particularly interested in this section:

Part III relies on practical police experience to explain why handguns are the best arms for home defense, particularly in an urban area such as Washington, D.C.

elb

Update: I was just scanning through this brief when I noticed that the guy I got some excellent defensive handgun training from, John Farnam, is cited as an authority in the brief. Cool. elb

[tomneal]

I was looking at the case filings for Heller at:
http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/


Here is my summary:
We have more friends than they do.

[KD5NRH]

Here is my summary:
We have more friends than they do.

Well, we certainly have better quality ones :)