Two other amicus briefs on behalf of the respondents in McDonald v. Chicago warrant mention. The first [pdf] is filed on behalf of the Villages of Winnetka & Skokie, Illinois. The other is written by Carolyn McCarthy.
You may remember Skokie from its brief cameo in the Blues Brothers. In their brief, they maintain that incorporation of the 2nd Amendment would violate Home Rule powers. They also worry that constituents will grow weary of seeing their government spend tax dollars defending unconstitutional regulations.
Another aspect of amici’s experiences should concern the Court. When Evanston and Winnetka repealed their more restrictive laws in 2008, it was not because their citizens or legislators had been persuaded by policy arguments like the ones advanced by petitioners, respondent NRA, and their amici–but rather because they determined that the costs of defending the laws in federal court were too high to have local taxpayers bear. The prospect of resolution through litigation–and the threat of it–against local governments, for legislative actions taken in good faith to advance important public aims, is a further reasonfor rejecting the unprecedented constitutional interpretation petitioners seek the Court to impose. p. 3
“Resolution through litigation?” If that sounds familiar, it’s because that is is exactly what Cook County attempted in the late 1990’s, when they started suing firearms manufacturers.
Mirroring the briefs filed by Chicago counsel and the United States Conference of Mayors, they claim that handguns can be banned without contravening the right to self-defense.
There is no claim in this case that Chicago or Oak Park actually has deprived plaintiffs of the ability to defend themselves–or do so with arms, though they may not use their first-choice weapon. p. 20
I hate Illinois Nazis.
The McCarthy brief [pdf] is authored in conjunction with Mike Quigley and “53 other members of the United States Congress.” I don’t really care who the “53 other members” were. I can probably guess.
This one is simply an attempted rebuttal of the Congressional brief, which had 309 signatures.
The brief from our side argued that state-level firearms restrictions impeded the ability of Congress to call forth militias. McCarthy counters with this:
No state firearm legislation would prevent Congress from again exercising its powers under the war and militia clauses. p. 28
Yes, it would. If a state bars its citizens from owning guns appropriate for use in the militia, how are they supposed to be prepared (“regulated”) to use them in a time of crisis?
Incorporation of the Second Amendment is not necessary to ensure that firearms suitable for the national defense are privately owned because the possession of such firearms is already lawful in every state. (…) Even in states without such a constitutional provision, the private ownership of firearms is not prohibited by law. p. 26
This is patently untrue. If we’re talking about “firearms suitable for the national defense,” we’re talking about military rifles, which are banned in several states, including California, Connecticut, and New Jersey, as well as Cook County. She should know: she attempts to reintroduce the federal Assault Weapons ban every year in the legislature.
Furthermore, simply because a state doesn’t already ban certain firearms, there is no guarantee that they will not do so in the future. One of the intentions of the 14th Amendment was to prevent constitutional rights from being infringed at the whim of local governments.
And to think there was a time when I feared Ms. McCarthy.