"More Friends of the Second Amendment: A Walk through the Amicus Briefs in McDonald v. Chicago" ( http://hq.ssrn.com/Journals/RedirectClick.cfm?url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1686883&partid=47512&did=86593&eid=110190939 ) Journal on Firearms & Public Policy, Vol. 22
ILYA SHAPIRO ( http://hq.ssrn.com/Journals/RedirectClick.cfm?url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1382023&partid=47512&did=86593&eid=110190939 ), Cato Institute Email: [email protected] This Article summarizes each of the dozens of amicus brief filed in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the case regarding the extension of the right to keep and bear arms to the states. That was perhaps the most interesting question at issue here, but there were others too, with activists, think tanks, politicians, and concerned citizens of all stripes filing 50 amicus briefs (fourth all-time). Many focused on the Due Process versus Privileges or Immunities issue, while others discussed the incorporation of rights generally - treating the debate over Fourteenth Amendment clauses as an academic technicality. Disappointingly, many of the respondents’ amici insisted on re-litigating Heller, arguing about the meaning of the historic right to keep and bear arms and its relationship to militia service. One or more of petitioners’ amici might similarly be criticized for running a Heller victory lap, essentially saying that the individual Second Amendment right is so important that it just has to be incorporated. And, of course, several amici got into a duel, as it were, over the social science evidence regarding effectiveness of gun bans and related issues. The amici (32 for the challengers to the handgun ban, 16 for Chicago, and two styled as not taking sides) not only echo the fundamental disagreement on the nature of the right to keep and bear arms and the role of the federal courts in protecting it, but extend it. Perhaps the most striking, and quite possibly influential, brief was provided by the “Constitutional Law Professors”: anything that brings together conservative, progressive, and libertarian lions - e.g., Steven Calabresi, Jack Balkin, and Randy Barnett, respectively - merits serious consideration. (Full disclosure: I was involved in discussions surrounding that and several other briefs regarding the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment and how the Constitution protects rights against state usurpation generally - and of course I signed the Cato Institute’s brief, which was principally authored by Timothy Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation.) I hope that, when read in the light of the Court’s opinions in the case, this Article can serve as a guide for counsel and parties in the litigation over how much states can regulate the right to keep and bear arms that has already been launched. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Substantive Due Process after McDonald v. Chicago" ( http://hq.ssrn.com/Journals/RedirectClick.cfm?url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1689249&partid=47512&did=86593&eid=110190939 ) CHRISTOPHER R. GREEN ( http://hq.ssrn.com/Journals/RedirectClick.cfm?url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=473949&partid=47512&did=86593&eid=110190939 ), University of Mississippi - School of Law Email: [email protected] Few were terribly surprised when the Supreme Court announced at the end of June that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states and municipalities to respect the same individual right to keep and bear arms independent of militia service that the Court had enforced against the federal government two years before in Heller v. District of Columbia. The case was nonetheless hotly anticipated, less out of uncertainty over whether one of the Heller majority might actually vote against incorporation, but for details of the decision’s scope and rationale. This short essay canvasses what the various opinions in McDonald have to say about the scope of Fourteenth Amendment gun rights, the nature of Fourteenth Amendment fundamentality, constitutional theory, and constitutional meta-theory ***************************************************************************************** Professor Joseph Olson, J.D., LL.M. o- 651-523-2142 Hamline University School of Law (MS-D2037) f- 651-523-2236 St. Paul, MN 55113-1235 c- 612-865-7956 [email protected] http://law.hamline.edu/node/784
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
