By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
Legal scholars, law enforcement groups, attorneys general, literally every major Second Amendment organization on the landscape, and sportsmen’s organizations are lining up in support of the plaintiffs in two consolidated cases challenging bans on so-called “assault weapons,” and now the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) has added a heavy dose of history to the mix.
Joined by Dr. Angus Kirk McClellan, an independent scholar of Anglo-American legal history, and by Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, CCRKBA submitted a 31-page amicus brief supporting the Second Amendment Foundation and its allies in cases known as Viramontes v. Cook County (Illinois) and Grant v. Higgins (Connecticut).
“In our brief,” noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “we take a scholarly journey through the history of arms regulation; not just firearms, but other arms including swords, knives and other lawful arms. Nowhere in history is there any justification for outright bans of any arms, only the regulation of their misuse. As we explain, AR-15-style rifles serve recognized lawful purposes for home and personal defense, hunting, target shooting, organized competition and pest and predator control.”
The lineup of pro-rights amicus briefs is impressive. In addition to the briefs filed by the Department of Justice and 27 state attorneys general, Safari Club International and the Sportsmen’s Alliance submitted a brief, and a 33-page brief was submitted by Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of CA, TN Firearms Assoc., TN Firearms Foundation., VA Citizens Defense. League, VA Citizens Def. Foundation, Coal. of NJ Firearm Owners, Grass Roots NC, Heller Foundation, America’s Future, Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, DownsizeDC.org, Downsize DC Foundation, U.S. Constitutional Rights Legal Def. Fund, Cons. Legal Def. & Ed. Fund, B&T USA, Century Arms & CANiK, and Fostech.
A 50-page brief was submitted jointly by the National Rifle Association, American Suppressor Association and Independence Institute.
The National Sheriff’s Association and Western States Sheriffs’ Association joined to submit a 24-pager, while the Peace Officers Research Association of California, the California Association of Highway Patrolmen and the Crime Prevention Research joined together to file a 50-page amicus.
“It is gratifying to see that CCRKBA is in very good company with our historical amicus brief,” CCRKBA’s Gottlieb said. “We are taking sides with 27 state attorneys general, with the U.S. Department of Justice, with law enforcement groups and literally ever other major firearms civil rights organization in the country. We all know what is at stake when the Court hears oral arguments in December, and the Citizens Committee is proud to stand in support of the Constitution and we expect the Second Amendment will prevail.”
Reading through some of these briefs, one can find genuine gems of Second Amendment wisdom.
For example, in their brief, GOA and its many allies note, “But even if the weapons at issue here were ‘military’ weapons, that would be no reason to ban them, because the Framers specifically sought to guarantee access to military weapons, first and foremost. Indeed, after having just thrown off the yoke of the then-most powerful empire in the world, the Framers codified the Second Amendment to be ‘better able to resist tyranny.’ Heller, 554 U.S. at 598. It therefore seems unlikely that they would have voluntarily and intentionally relegated themselves to possessing only second-class ‘civilian’ weaponry. That would have defeated the animating purpose of the Second Amendment entirely.”
The Sheriffs’ group observes, “Law abiding citizens with an AR-15 are not a threat to anyone. Millions of Americans own such weapons for self-defense and have a Second Amendment right to do so. Making such weapons illegal for law abiding citizens will not stop criminals from possessing weapons to commit violent crimes. Violent criminals generally do not shop at gun stores to legally purchase weapons to commit violent crimes. They generally steal weapons or obtain them on the black market. The criminals will have weapons. Criminals don’t follow gun laws. When we disarm law-abiding citizens, we make them vulnerable. Banning law abiding citizens from having AR-15 type rifles will do nothing to keep weapons out of the hands of violent criminals. Such a ban will only disarm innocent victims who need protection.”
Several pages later, the sheriffs added, “The purpose of the Second Amendment was to grant citizens the right to bear arms against tyranny of government. If our government is now allowed to seize the most popular weapon citizens own for self-defense, many citizens will not submit peacefully to such a government overreach.”
A brief submitted jointly by the National African American Gun Association, Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association, the Liberal Gun Club and Operation Blazing Sword-Pink Pistols sums it up: “Respondents’ flat bans on these safe, effective, and reliable self-defense tools are not just inconsistent with historical tradition, as petitioners have explained. They are also perverse, as they deprive the people who face the greatest need for effective self-defense tools of some of the best such tools ever made.”
