McDonald v. Chicago: Briefs Pending

The deadline for amicus curiae briefs in the McDonald case is November 23. Chicago filed for an extension, and their brief is now due on December 30.

Two Senators and two Representatives have drafted a brief in support of the plaintiffs, and we’d like to see it receive as many signatures from other legislators as possible. Please contact your congressmen and ask them to sign this brief.

Here is a form letter I’ve drafted for the purpose:

Sir,

This session, the Supreme Court will be hearing McDonald v. Chicago.  At issue is whether the 14th Amendment incorporates the protections of the 2nd Amendment against the states.  While most other civil liberties have been incorporated over the years through the Due Process clause, the right to keep and bear arms, confirmed by the Court in last year’s Heller decision, remains unrecognized in many states.

On its surface, this is a gun-rights case.  While it is imperative that our right to keep firearms for sport and defense of home be recognized nationwide, there are larger Constitutional issues at play.

For example, not every state recognizes the 5th Amendment right to indictment by a grand jury, the 7th Amendment right to jury trial in civil cases, or the 8th Amendment protections against excessive fines and bails.  Other unenumerated rights will also be affected.  This case is about civil rights in general, and its results are likely to be far-reaching.

The central question is that of the very history, intent and meaning of the second clause of the 14th Amendment, which reads, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”  Though the Privileges or Immunities clause was widely whittled away by a 19th century Court hostile to Reconstruction, it begs revisiting today.  This case presents a long-overdue chance to do so.

Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Jon Tester (D-MT), and Congressmen Mike Ross (D-AR) and Mark Souder (R-IN) are gathering signatures for an amicus curiae brief in favor of the plantiffs, and I ask that you add your signature to this brief.

I thank you for your support on this issue, and for your continued service to our state and our country.

Feel free to use it with your own legislators.

This follows a brief filed [pdf] in our support by 33 state Attorneys General back in July.

The Brady Campaign is expected to file a brief within the next few days, most likely written by Dennis Henigan.  I expect that he’ll continue to bemoan the idea that the Court somehow “found” or “created” the right to keep and bear arms from whole cloth in the Heller decision.  He’ll likely refer to “activist” jurisprudence a few times as well.  Then he’ll chase his tail a bit, and when he runs out of ideas, he’ll beg the Court to consider the “consequences” of their ruling.  Think of the children and all.

No matter what the Court rules, he’ll claim it a “victory” for “sensible gun laws.”  It’s the only rhetoric they’ve got left as their arguments, which they used to great effect for almost two decades, are quickly swept aside.