did.
Why?INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE {American Civil Rights Union (ACRU)}SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
We join the Petitioners and Respondent in urging this Court to grant the requested Writ of Certiorari.
This case presents questions of the highest importance, involving the fundamental meaning of the Second Amendment. In over 200 years, this Court has still not resolved the basic questions regarding the Amendment’s meaning. This case now presents a clear opportunity for the Court to do so.
Moreover, there is a widening split among the circuit courts over the basic meaning of the Second Amendment. Two circuits now agree that the Second Amendment does protect a right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms. Four circuits hold that the Amendment does not protect any individual right at all, but, rather, protects instead a power of each state to maintain its own militia. And four other circuits find that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, but only in the case of a soldier serving in a state militia.
Consequently, there could not be a stronger case for granting the requested writ of certiorari.
However, Petitioners do not correctly state the Question Presented by this case. Petitioners Question Presented is:
“Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns.”
But that question is not consistent with the record in this case or the decision below.
This case actually presents two questions, as follows:
Does the Second Amendment protect the right of an individual citizen to keep and bear arms?
If so, do the legal provisions of the District of Columbia barring citizens from keeping and bearing handguns for self-defense and other uses violate the Second Amendment?
The decision below should be affirmed because, among many other reasons, the text of the Second Amendment plainly protects a right of each individual citizen to keep and bear arms, and there is no other logical interpretation of the Amendment.
Regardless of the District’s policy arguments in favor of gun control, the Constitution and the Second Amendment govern. Nevertheless, the District’s policy arguments are plain wrong. The District’s ban on handguns has not been effective in reducing crime. The fundamental problem is that the District does not have the practical power to take guns away from criminals. At the same time, the District’s ban on handguns and other gun control laws have taken guns for self defense out of the hands of law abiding citizens. As a result, the District’s gun control restrictions have more likely increased crime.
The courts cannot treat the Second Amendment as a politically incorrect, disfavored stepchild of the Bill of Rights. Fidelity to the Constitution requires the courts to give it the same zealous protection as every other right stated in our founding document. The Amendment is not being read broadly to protect the rights and liberties of the people if it is somehow interpreted to allow the government to adopt a virtually complete ban on handguns, and an effective prohibition on the use of rifles and shotguns, as in this case.
Did ACLU’s adviser Bob Barr convince ACLU to stay on the sidelines in D.C. v. Heller?ACLU’s position
ACLU POLICY # 47"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment {as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller} that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
