Amicus - Nra

Ë

IN

'fI'{Ë

I.JNI'|EDST'ATESCOIjRT OF APPEAI-S FOIì TFIENINTH CIRCTJIT

No. 07 - 15763 DC# CV 99-4389-MJJ

C

IIIJSSEI.LALLEN NORDYKE,et al., Appellants V.

MARY V. KING, et al., Appellees

AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF .TTTE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., AND THE CALTFORNIA RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORTOF THE APPELLANTS AND IN SUPPORTOF REVERSAL

Appealfiom the U. S. DistrictCourt for the NorthernDistrictof California D.C.No. CV 99-04389MJJ C. D. Michel- S.B.N.144258 ,I-RTJI"ANICI.I - MICT{EL,I-LP 180EastOceanBlvd..Suite200 Long [3each, CA 90802 felephone: (562)216-4444 Counselfor Atnici Curiae

StephenP. Flalbrook Law Officesof StephenP. Flalbrook 10560Main Srreer,Suite404 Fairfax,Virginia 22030 Telephone: (703) 352-7276 Counselfor Amici Curiae

Ë

IN

'I'[.IE IJNITEDST'ATESCOI.IRTOF APPEAI-S IìORTI-IENINl-H CIRCI.JIT

No. 07 - 15763 DC# CV 99-4389-MJJ

I{IJSSEI.LALLEN NORDYKE,et al., Appellants

L.

v. MARY V. KING, et al., Appellees

AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF .T[IE, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., AND THE CALTFORNIA RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORTOF THE APPELLANTS AND IN SUPPORTOF REVERSAL ( )

Appealfrom the U. S. DistrictCourt for the NorthernDistrictof California D.C.No. CV 99-04389MJJ C. D. Michel- S.B.N.144258 .I'RTJTANICH - MICT-IEL,LLP 180EastOceanBIvd..Suite200 [-ong[ìeach,CA 90802 felephon e: (562)2 16-4444 Counselîor Amici Cttriae

StephenP. Flalbrook Law Officesof StephenP. Flalbrook 10560Main Streer,Suite404 Fairfax,Virginia 22030 Telephone: (703)352-727 6 Counselfor Amici Curiae

€l

CORPOII.ATEDISCLOSURE STATBMENT NATIONAL RIFLB ASSOCIATION The NationalRifle Association of,America,Inc.,hasno parentcorporations. Sinceit hasno stock,no publiclyheldcompanyowns ITYror moreof its stock. CALIFORNIA RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION The CaliforniaRifle & PistolAssociationhasno parentcorporations.Since

& ..-l

it hasno stock,no publicly heldcompanyowns l0o/oor moreof its stock. Date:September 29,2008

Respectfully Submitted, NationalRifle Associationof America, Inc.,California Rifle & PistolAssociation Amíci Curiae ,, ( -]'r_

i-

(

i..'o.-.

ElyCóunselC. D. Michel

(,

,;

$

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAcE(Sl IDENTITYOFTHEAMICICURIAE N a t i o n aRl i f l c A s s o c i a t i o n C a l i f o r n i al l . i f l e & P i s t o l A s s o c i a t i o n ConsenttoFile

F

ARGUMENT

.......I .......I ...2 .......3 a J

.|

I.

Introduction. .

II.

Heller Clarifies That the SupremeCourt Has Left Open Whether the FourteenthAmendmentIncorporates the SecondAmendment,and Suggests That it Does ...... 3

III.

Heller SupercedesFresnoRtfI", Which Conflicts withPriorSupremeCourtPrecedent....

IV.

Historically,the Right to Keepand Bear Arms Has B e e nR e g a r d e d a s a F u n d a m e n t a l R i g h t

t. j

V.

The Prohibition Here Violatesthe Right to K e e pa n dB e a r A r m s

CONCLUSION CERTIFICATB OF COMPLIANCE

J

...11

....20

.....28 .....30 . . 3I

æ

TABLE OF AUTHOIIITIES PAGE(S) F ED E R A L C A S E S ,1I dr i dge v. Cctmmonw,ealt h, 4 Y a . 4 4 7 , 2V a . C a s .4 4 7 , 4 4 9( C e n .C r . l S 2 4 ) Ándrews v- State, 5 0 T e n n .1 6 5 ,1 8 7( 1 8 7 1 ) i

\

Ilarron v. Mayor o/'Baltimore, 7 P e t . 2 4 3 , 8L . E d .6 7 2 ( 1 8 3 3 ) Ilell v. Maryland, 3 7 8 U . S .2 2 6 , 2 4 7 - 4 8& " n . 3 ( 1 9 6 a )

.. ..... 5

. . .29

.. 6, t5

. . . . . 19

Chicago, B e Q R. Co. v. Chícago,

1 6 6U . S2. 2 6( 1 8 e 7 )

. . 13

De Jonge v. Oregon,

2 9 9U . S 3 . s 3 , 3 6 4( t 9 3 7 )

(, , , 1

District o/'Columbia v. Heller, 1 2 8S . C t.2 7 8 3 (2 0 0 8 )

. . . t6

pas s ím

Dred Scott v. Sandford,

6 0u . s . 3 9 3 , 4 t(7t 8 s 7 )

.... 20

[)ttncan v. Louisiana,

( 179 6 8 ) 3 9 tt J . St .4 s , t 6 6 - 6 liresru; Rrfl" & Pistol Club v. Van de Kamp, 9 6 s F .zd 7 2 3 ,7 2 9 -3I (9 th Cir . 1992\ .

.....18

. . . t2

e TABLE OF AUTHORTTTES(CONT.) PAcE(S) FEDLRAL CASESíCONT.) Gitlow v. New York, 268U.S.652,666(t92s)

. . . t6

Gríswold v. Connecticut, 3 8 1U . S . 4 7 9 , 4 8 2 -( 81 39 6 5 ) ¡:. ...i i ' j

..... 30

llickman v. Block, 8 l F . 3 d9 8 ( 9 , hC i r . 1 9 9 6 )

. . . 12

Jones v. Alfred I{. Mayer Co., 392U.S.409,423-24,436(196S) Mctlloy v. IIogan, 3 7 8t J . S .t , 5 ( t 9 6 4 \

. . t7

Miller v. Gammie, 335F.3d889,900(9thCir. 2003\

:

,

......19

Miller v. Texas, 1 5 3t J . S5. 3 5 ,5 3 8( 1 8 9 4 )

. . . . . . Iz

. . 1 0 ,i I , 1 3

Monell v. I)ep't of Social Services, 436U.S.658,686-87(1978)

......6

Nord¡tke v. King, 3lg I.'.31 d 1 8 5 l, l 9 3 ( g , h C i r . 2 0 0 3 )

..... t7

Nunn v. State, I G a . 2 4 3 , ? 5( 11 8 4 6 )

....... 5

iii

& TABLB OF AUTHORTTTES(CONT.) PAGE(S) FE,DBRALCASES(CONT.) PlannedParenthor¡dv. Casey, s 0 5u . s . 8 3 3 ,8 4 8( 1 9 9 2 \

... 16

Presserv. lllinois, 1 1 6U . S .2 5 2 , 2 6 5( 1 8 8 6 )

@ , ,1

. . . . passim

l?egentsof Universityof Cali/brnia v. Ilakke, 438U.S.265,397-98(1978) San Antonio IndependentSchoolDistríct v. Rodriguez, 4 l I U . S .t , t 7, 3 3 ( t 9 7 3 \ Silveira v. Locþter, 3 t 2 F . 3 d1 0 5 2( 2 0 0 3 )

.....19

. . . I5

t2, t5, t7

Silveira v. Loclqter,

328F.3ds67(2003)... 'i i'

....r2

Silveira v. Lockyer, 5 4 0 U . S1. 0 4 6 ( 2 0 0 3 )

......19

SÌnaloa l.ake Owners Áss'n v. City of Simi Valley, 8 8 2 F . 2 d 1 3 9 8 ,1 4 0 9( g t h C i r . 1 9 8 9 )

. . . . t7

Tom v. Sutton, 5 3 3F . 2 d1 1 0 1 l,l 0 5 ( g t h c i r1. 9 7 6 ).

....l7

Ullmann v. United States, 350U.S.422,428-29(t956)

.....16

Unìred Statesv. Carolene Products Co.. 3 0 4 U . S .t 4 4 ( 1 9 3 8 )

... 4 iv

& TABLE OF AUTHORTTTES (CONT.) PAG E( S) FBDEIìAL CASES (CONT.) United Statesv. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 ( 1876) United Statesv. Emerson, .270F.3d203(5'hCir.2001) ,,.

-...,

passim

......14

United States v. Gomez, 9 2 1 t . 3 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 4n . 7 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 9 6 )

. . . . 20

United Statesv. Lancellotti, 76 1 F .zd 1 3 6 3 ,t3 6 6 (9 th Cir . t9B5)

. . . . t2

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 8 5 6 I 1 . 2 d1 2 1 4 ,l Z 2 0 ( g t hC i r . l g B B ) .

. . . .20

Valley Forge Christían College v. Americans Unitedfor Separation of Church & State, Inc.,

4 s 4U . S 4. 6 4 , 4 8(41 9 8 2 ) i'

,ì

ll/oocl v. Ostrander, 8 7 9F .zd 5 8 3 , 5 9 1 (9 ,nC ir . lg89)

U. S. Const.Amend.II tJ. S. Const.Amend.XIV

... 16

. . 20

.. pas s un ...- passtm

æ

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (CONT.) PAGE(S) OTHER AUTHORTTY(CONT.) Âlarneda CountyCode$ 9.12.120(b) Cìong.Globe, 3 9 t hC o n g . l,s t S e s s .3,6 2 , 3 7 1( 1 3 6 6 )

..')

Cong.Globe, 4 Z n d C o n gl s. ,t S e s sA. ,p p . 8 4 ( M a r . 3 l , l g 7 l ) . . .

. . . . 3, 2g,30 . . . . 7,g, lg

....6

I}OOKS & ARTICT,ES St. GeorgeTucker& the SecondAmendment, 4 7 W m .& , M a r yL . R e v .t L Z 3 ,t I Z s - t l 3 l ( 2 0 0 6 ). . .

. . .22,23

SteveFlalbrook, Freedmen, the FourteenthAmendment,andthe Right to BearArms, 1866-1876(1998) .....6

i ,,) i

StephenP. Halbrook,

.-l':ä:ï;i,""::iå'.?ïil1ff:î^äi:;,?:::::::::;':f

Law &. Policy, No.2, 120 (Spring2007) StephenP. Halbrook, T h a tE v e r yM a n B e A r m e dl l 0 - l S ( Z d e d . l 9 9 4 ) StephenP. Ilalbrook, The Founders' SecondAmendment(2008), c h a p t e r6s & . 7 , 9 - I l William Rawle.

A View of theconstitutionof the unitedStatesof America.

t z t - 2 2( I 8 2 s )

vi

23.24

.....

lg

. .24

G

TDENTITY OF THE AMICI CURIAE NationalRifle Association The NationalRifìe Associationof,America,Inc. ("NftA"¡ is a New york rrot-fbr-profitmembership corporationfoundedin 1871.NRA hasapproximately f-ourmillion individualmembers and 10,700affiliatedmembers(clubsand associations) nationwide.NRA's purposes, assetforthin its Bylaws,includethe

& ,

')

Ibllowing: 1'oprotectanddefendthe constitutionof the united states. especiallywith referenceto the inalienableright of the individual Americancitizenguaranteed by suchConstitutionto acquire,possess, transport,carry, transferownershipof,,and enjoy the right to use arms, in order that the peoplemay always be in a position to exercise their legitimate individual rights of selÊpreservationand defenseof

i l fämily, person,and property,as well as to serveeffectively in the 3

appropriatemilitia for the common det-ense of the Republic and the

individuallibertyof its cirizens. . . . NRA's interestin this casestemsfrom the factthat largenumbersof NRA membersresidein the Statesencompassed within the Ninth Circuit andwill be alfectedby anyruling this Courtmay makeconcerningwhetherthe right of the

& pcople to keepand bear arms guaranteedin the SecondAmendment is protected fiom Stateinfringementunder the FourteenthAmendment. California Rifle & Pistol Association The CaliforniaRifle and Pistol Association,Inc. ("CRP4") is a non-profit membershiporganizationwith ror-rghly65,000 members.CIIPA is incorporated 8;

under the laws of California, with headquartersin Fullerton. Among its other activities, CRPA works to preserveconstitutionaland statutoryrights of gun ownership, including the right to self-def,ense and the right to keep and bear arms. Consent to File All partieshave consentedto the f,rlingof this amici curiae brief.

Date:Septernber 29, 2008

Respectfully Submitted, NationalRifle Associationof America, Inc.,CaliforniaRifle & PistolAssociation Ámíci Curiae

Bv CounselC.

æ

ARGUMENT l.

I n tro d u cti o n 'fhis

caseconcernsthe validity of AlamedaCounryCode g g. I 2. 120(b),

which provides:"Every personwho brings onto or possesses on C-'ountyproperty a fìrearm, loadedor unloaded,or ammunition for a firearm is guilty of a €3'

lnisdemeanor." It appearsto be undisputedthat the legislativernotive was to ban gr-lnshows,i.e.,exhibitionsof firearmsinvolving both political speechand oommercialspeech,including the lawful purchaseand saleof firearms. 'l'he County allows shows in which other lawful productsare bought and sold. This lrrief f-ocuses on whether the ordinanceinfringes on the right to keep and bear arms under the Secondand FourteenthAmendments. Il.

'"t' L,'

Heller Clarifies That the Supreme Court Has Left Open Whether t he F o u rte e n thA me n d ment Incor por atesthe SecondAmendment, and Suggests'fhat it Does District of colttmbia v. Heller, r2B s. ct. z7B3 (2008), held that a

prohibition on possessionof handgunsin the home violated the individual right to keep and beararms guaranteedby the SecondAmendment. Íleller further clarified that its prior precedentshave not resolvedwhetherthe Second Amendment is incorporatedinto the FourteenthAmendment so as to prohibit statesand localities from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, but

@

st.ronglyimpliedthat it does. I{eller recognizesthe right to keep and bear arms as an expticitlyguaranteedr'ightalongsideother fundamentalrights. "[T]he SecondAmendment, like the Irirst and Fourth Amendments,codifi ed a pre-existing right."r Rejecting f.lrerational-basisstandardof review, I-[eller states:

.. \

Obviously,the sametest could not be usedto evaluatethe extentto which a legislaturemay regulatea specific,enumeratedright, be it the freedomof speech,the guaranteeagainstdoublejeopardy, the right to counsel,or the right to keep and bear arrns. SeeUnited States v. Cctrr¡lene ProductsCo.,304 U.S. I 44,l5Z, n. 4, 5g S.Ct.77g, gz L.Ed. 1234(1938) ("There may be nanower scopefor operationof the presumptionof constitutionality fi.e., narrowerthan that provided by rational-basisreviewl when legislation appearson its face to be within a specificprohibitionof the Constitution,such as thoseof the first ten amendments...").2 Similarly, in rejectingan "interest-balancinginquiry," Heller statesthat the lìirst Amendmentcontainedno exception for unpopularviews, and "the Second

',

.)

Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the veryprochtctot an interestbalancingby the people. . . ." This "elevatesaboveall other intereststhe right of law-abiding, responsiblecitizensto use arrns in defcnseof hearthand home."3

t Id. at 2797. 2 Id. at28l8 n.27. ] Id. at 2ïzl .

4

$Þ

Specifìcallyregardingincorporation,I{eller noted conflicting views in the antebelluffìera about whetherthe Bill of Rightsappliedto the states,discussed lìeconstructionviews suggestingthat the FourteenthArnendment'slramers intended to protect SecondAmendment rights, and clarified that its nineteenthcentury clecisionsleft the issueopen. æ

First,ÍIeller recognizedprominentantebellurn opinionsby statesupreme coutts that the SecondAmendment applied directly to the states.aIteller also cited clecisionsupholdingstateprohibitionson free blacksfrom bearingarms on the basis that they had no constitutionalrights.s '['he Court further quoted antebellurn commentatorswho wrote that the statesmay not violate the SecondAmendmentÍ

1 I¿1.ttt2809,quotingNunnv. State, I Ga.243,25I ( 1846),thatthe SecondAmendment protectsthe" naturalright of self-defense" andexplaining: 'rhe

rightof thewholepeople,old andyoung,men,womenandboys,anclnot militia only,to keepand beararms of everydescription,and not such merely asareusedby themilitia, shallnot be infringed,curtailed,or brokenin upon, in thesmallestdegree. . . . Our opinionis, thatany law, Stateor Federal,is repugnant to the Constitution, andvoid, whichcontravenes thisright . . . . s Id. at 280t1,citingAtdridgev. Commonvvealth. 4 Ya. 447,2Va. Cas. 447, 44g(Gen.Ct. t824\. 6Id. at 2805-06,quotingWilliam Rawle. A Viewof the Constitutionof rhe Llnited States of A n t e r i cal 2 l -2 2 (1 8 2 5 ),a sfo l l o ws: No clausein the constitution couldby anyrule of construction be conceived to give to congress a powerto disannthe people.Sucha flagitiousattempt couldonly be lnadeundersofftegeneralpretense by a statelegislature. But if

& while Barronv. Mavorof Baltimore,T Pet.243,8L.Ed.672(1833),opinedthat the Uill of Rightsdid not applydirectlyto the states,thatwasbefbreadoptionof the lroufteenthAmendment,which was intendedto overturnBarron.T Second,Heller discusses in detailthe intentof the Reconstruction Consress to protectthe rightof freed slavesto keep and beararms from state inlringement by its proposalof the F'ourteenthAmendment and passageoÊcivil rights

?:E eg

legislation. "ln the aftermathof the Civil War, there was an outpouring of discussionof the SecondAmendmentin Congressand in public discourse,as people debatedwhether and how to secureconstitutionalrights for newly free slaves."8 As the Court noted,"Blacks were routinely disarmedby SouthernStates alier the Civit War. 1'hosewho opposedthese injusticesfrequently statedthat they

',i. " .) in any blind pursuit of inordinatepower, either should atternptit, this amendment may be appealed to asa restrainton both. 7 "Representative [John]Bingham. . . explainedthathe haddraftecl$l of the F-ourleenth Amendmentwith thecaseof Barronv. Mavorof Baltimore,TPet.243(1833),especially in mind." Monellv. Deptof SocialServices.436 U.S.658,686-87(1978).On thesarnepage of thatspeech,Binghamcharacterized "the right of thepeopleto keepandbeararms"asone of the"limitationsuponthepowerof theStates. . . madesoby theFourteenth Amendment." Cong.Globe.42ndCong.,lst Sess., App. 84 (Mar.31. l87l). t Heller, 128S,Ct. at 2809-10.citing S. Halbrook,F'reeclmen, ÍheF'ourteenth ,Amenclment, and theRightto BearArnts,1866-1876 (1998).

æ

infringeclblacks'constitutionalright to keepand bearanns."e Iteller quotedthe followingf,romthe Freedmen's BureauAct ol 1866: "lTlhe right . . . to havefull andequalbenefitof all lawsandproceedings concerningpersonal liberty,personalsecurity,andtheacquisition, enjoyment, and clispositionof estate,real and personal,includingthe constitutionalright to bear æ

ítrffls, shall be securedto and enjoyed by all the citizens. . . without respectto raÇe

" Id. at2810. ÍIeller quotedthe tbllowinginstances: A Reportof theCommission ofltheFreedmen's Bureauin 1866statedplainly: "[Tlhe civil law [oflKentucky]prohibitsthecoloredman from bearingarms. -l-heir ... annsaretakenfromthemby thecivil authorities... . Thus,the right of' the peopleto keep and bear arms as providedin the Constitutionis infringed."H. R. Exec.Doc. No. 70,3gthcong., lst sess..233,236.A joint congressional Reportdecried: "in somepartsof ISouthCarolina.l, amredpartiesare.rvithoutproperauthoriry, engagedin seizingall fire-armsfbund in the handsof the freemen.Such conductis in clearanddirectviolationof theirpersonalrightsas guaranteed by the Clonstitution oi the UnitedStates,whichdeclares that 'the right of the peopleto keepandbeararmsshallnot be infringed.'The fieedmenof South Carolinahaveshownby theirpeaoeful andorderlyconcluct thattheycansafely be trustedwith frre-anns, andtheyneedthemto kill garnetbr subsistence, and to protecttheircropsfromdestruction by birdsandanimals."Joint Comm.on R eco n stru cti o n .H R ..R e p .No.30,39thcong.,lst sess.,pt.z,p.z2g( r s66) (Proposed Circularof BrigadierGeneralR. Saxton). The view expressed in thesestatements rvaswidelyreportedand was apparentlywidely held. For example.an editorialin The Loyal Georgian (Augusta)on þ-ebruary3. 1866,assuredblacksthat "[a]ll men, without distinctionof color, have the right to keep and bear armsto defendtheir homes,familiesor themselves." Halbrook19.

æ

o r c o l or,o r p re vi o u sco n d i ti o nof slaver y. . .."r 0 As discussed below,the Ac t w as passedby over two-thirds vote of the same Congressthat proposedthe F'ourteenth Amendntent. '['hc

Court notedthat "Similar discussionattendedthe passageof'the Civil

ttights Act of l87l and the FourteenthAmendment." "With respecrto the proposedAmendment,SenatorPomeroydescribedas one of the three

&

'indispensable''sal'eguards of liberty . . .under the Constitution'a man's 'right to lrcar arms fbr the defènseof himself and family and his homestead."'rr'I'he Court quoted similar materialon the origins of the Civil RightsAct.r2 lleller concluded:

:

.

i

tolcl. ttt2tll0-2811.quoting I4 stat.t76-177(1866).I-reileradded: 'fhe understanding thattheSecondAmendmentgavefieedblackstheright to keepandbeararmswasreflectedin congressional discussion of thebill, with evenan opponentof it sayingthat the foundinggeneration"were for every manbearinghis arrnsabouthim andkeepingthemin his house,his castle,for h i so w nd e fe n se co ." n g .Globe.3gth cong.,lst sess.,362.31.l ( 1g66)( Sen. Davis). tt I¿1.ztt281l. citingCong.Globe, 39thCong.,lst Sess.,I 182( 1866).Íleller added: Representative Nye thoughttheFourteenth Arnendment unnecessary because ''[als citizens the LJnited of States[blacks]haveequalright to protection,and to keepandbeararmsfor self-defense." Id., at 1073(1g66). 'r Id. aL2810-ll. quotingRepresentative Butleras sayingof theAct: "sectioneightis intendedto enfbrcethe well-knownconstitutional provisionguaranteeing the right of the citizento'keep and beararms,'andprovidesthat whoevershalltake away,by l'orceor violence.or by threatsandintimidation,theannsandweaponswhichanypersonmayhave f'orhis
æ

"lt was plainly the understandingin the post-Civil War Congressthat the Second Amendmentprotectedan individualright to usearms for self:defense."r3 'fhird,

Íleller clarifieclthat the Court has neverdecidedwhetherthe Second

Amendment appliesto the statesthrough the FourteenthAmendment. Like the l;irst and Fourth Amendments,the SecondAmendmentrecognizesa "pre-existing right" about which the Court statedin United Statesv. Cruílcshank(1876): "[t]his

æ i .\

is not a right grantedby the Constitution.Neither is it in any mannerdependent upon that instrumentfor its existence.The SecondAmendmentdeclaresthat it shall not be infringed

Cruikshank,"in the courseof vacatingthe

convictions of membersof a white mob for depriving blacksof their right to keep and bear arffts,held that the SecondAmendment doesnot by its own f'orceapply to anyone other than the FederalGovernment." It statedabout the Second

i- ')

Amendment right of "bearing anns f-ora lawful purpose"that "the people [must] look for their protectionagainstany violation by their fellow-citizensof the rights it recognizes"to the States'policepower.l5 ÍIeller commented:"With respectto Cruitcshank'scontinuingvalidity on

' 3I d . a t 2 8 1l . t' Id. ¿tt2797. quotingunitedstatesv. cruikshank,g2u.s. 542,553(1g76). tsI¿1.at2812-13,quotingCruikshanÉ, 92 U.S. at 553.

& incorporation,a questionnot presentedby this case,we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply againstthe Statesand dicl not engage in the sort of FourteenthAmendmentinquiry required by our later cases."ró The Court addedthat its decisionsin Presser v. Illinois (1386) andMÌller v. 'fexas

( 1894)"reaffirmed that the SecondAmendment appliesonly to the Federal

Covernment."lT

R

eÈ'

I-leller quotedPresseras having held that forbidding military organizations or armed paradesin cities without authorizationdid not violate the right to bear arms, noting that the FourteenthAmendment was not parüof that discussionand concluding;"Pressersaid nothingaboutthe SecondAmendment'smeaningor scope, beyondthe lact that it doesnot prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations."II

r ì

White Heller does not discussMiller v. Texas( 1S94) further, the Court

'o Id. aL2Bl3n.23. t' Id.. citingPresser v. Illinois,l l6 5 3 8( 1 8 e 4 ) .

U.S.252,265( 1886)andMiller v. Texas,l53 U.S.535.

tBId.at28l3, quotingPresserv.Illinois,l l6 U.S.252,264-65 (18S6).Hellerdistinguishes "'Presser'sbrief discussion of the SecondAmendmentwith a laterportionof the opinion rnakingthe seeminglyrelevant(to the SecondAmendment)point thattheplaintitTwasnot a rnemberof thestatemilitia.. . . fT]hatlaterportiondealswith theFourteenth,4menclntenî; it was theFottrteenth Arnendment to rvhichtheplaintilfs nonmelnbership in thernilitiawas relevant.'" Id.

l0

e" clccidedin that casethat the Secondand F'ourthAmendmentsdid not apply clirectly to the states,and refusedto consider whethertheseprovisions applied to lhe statesthrough the FourteenthAmendment becausethat argumenthad not been rnade in the courtsbelow.re In sum, I-Ieller clarifies that the SupremeCourt did not in its prior precedentsreject incorporationof the SecondAmendmentinto the Fourteenth

w ,.,ì .

Âmendment, and strongly suggeststhat it does. As Ileller comments, Cruikshank "did not engagein the sort of FourteenthAmendment inquiry required by our later cases.tt2o

It is incurnbenton this Courtto do so. I II.

Heller SupercedesFresnoRrflr, Which Conflictswith Prior SupremeCourt Precedent "WhereinterveningSuprerne Courtauthorityis clearlyirreconcilable with

i

)

our prior circuitauthority"- includingwhenthe irreconcilability is in the "mode of analysis"andnotjust squareconflictin the specihcholdings- 'tlthree-judge panelof this courtanddistrictcourtsshouldconsiderthemselves boundby the intervening higherauthorityandrejecttheprior opinionof this courtashaving

' eM i i l er v. T e xa s.l 5 3U .S .5 3 5 . 538( 1S94) . 20D. C. v. Ileller at 28l3 n.23.

lt

& bcen effectivelyoverruled."Miller v. Gammie,335F.3d 8Bg,B9g-900(9th Cir. 2003 ¡.2t Ileller underminesNinth Circuit precedenton the meaningof the Second Arnendrnentand on whether it is incorporatedinto the FourteenthAmendment. l-leller's holclingthat the SecondAmendment guaranteesan individual right to keep and bear arms overrulesthis Circuit's rulings that it protectsonly a "collective" stateright to maintain militias. SeeIlickman v, Block, Sl F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996),cert. denied,5lg U.S. 912 (1996);Silveirctv. Locþer,312 F.3d 1052, reh. denied,328F.3d 567 (grh cir. 2003), cert. denied,540 u.s. 1046(2003). Fresno ll,ifle & Pistol Club v. Van de Kamp,965 F .2d 723, 729-31 (9rh Cir. 1992), held that the SecondAmendment is not incorporatedinto the Fourteenth Amendment so as to protectthe right to keep and bear arms from State infringement. As lleller clarifies,Fresno RtÍ\" failed to read prior SupremeCourt precedentproperly and is inconsistentwith Heller's own analysis. i )

:r "When an intervening SupremeCourt decisionunderminesan existing precedentof the Ninth Circuit, and both casesare closely on point, a threejudge panel of this court may rcexamine
t2

& F-resnoRifle held that Cruikshanlèz and Presserz3applied even though they rrrentiononly the direct applicationof the First and SecondAmendmentsto the States,and did nclt addresswhethertheseare incorporatedinto the Fourteenth Arnenclment. F-re,sno Rifle stated that since Ìuliller v. Texaspredatedthe fìrst incorporation "there is no reasonto believe that Mitter left open the incorporation cetsc,=u

w

c¡uestionany more than Cruilcshankor Presser." 965 F.2d at730. Yet Miller held that the Secondand Fourth Amendmentsdid not directly apply to the states. 153 tJ.S. at 538. Miller explicitly statedthat it was not decidingthe incorporation c¡uestionof whether the FourteenthAmendment protectsthe right to keep and bear arrts.l5

t

l

:7 lìresno Rifle cites CruilcshanÉas having "held" that the Second Amendment does not constrainthe States. 965 F.2d'dt729. Yet no Stateaction was involved in Cruikshank. which concernedthe prosecutionof private individuals for violation of freedmen's rights fo assembleand beararms. 92 U.S. at 554-55. 23Presserhelclthat a prohibition on unlicensedanned marchesin cities "do[esl not inf,ringe thc right of the people to keep and bear arms," adding in dictum that the F-irstand Second Amendmentsdo not. in and of themselves, limit stateaction. I 16 U.S. at265.267. 2^Chicago, B.S{ Q.R. Co. v. Chicago,166 U.S. 226 (lSg7). :5 "lf thc Fourteenth Amendment limited the power of the Statesas to such rights [i.e., the rigl'rtsto bear armsand againstwarrantlesssearcheslas pertainingto citizensof,the LJnited States.we think it was fàtal to this clairn that it was not set up in the trial court." Id. at 53839.'Ihe Court would not hear assignmentsof error not tirnely madein the court below. Id.

l3

11

In rejectingthe argument"that the Cclurt itself has recognizedthat the incorporationof the SecondAmendment is an open question,"Fresno Rifle fell back on the Í'actthat "LheiVIíller Court cited Cruikshank in reafftrrning 'that the restrictionsof [the SecondAmendmentl operateonly upon the Federalpower."' 965 F.2d at 730.

'fhis

positionis now untenableunderHeller: "With respectto

Cruikshant's continuing valiclityon incorporation,. . . we note that Cruíkshank also said that the F'irstAmendmentdid not apply againstthe Statesand did not cngage in the sort of FourteenthAmendrnentinquiry requiredby our later cases." 1 2 8S . C t . a t 2 8 1 3n . 2 3 . UnitedStatesv. Emerson,270F'.3d203, ZZI n.l3 (5'hCir. 200l), cert. rleniecl,536U.S. 907 (2002), commentedon Cruikshank,Presser,and Miller:"As theseholdings all came well beforethe SupremeCourt beganthe processof incorporatingcertain provisionsof the first eight amendmentsinto the Due (

)

ProcessClauseof the FourteenthAmendment, and as they ultimately rest on a rationaleequallyapplicableto all thoseamendments,none of,themestablishes any principlegoverningany of the issuesnow beforeus." The Ninth Circuit agreedwith the above statementin Silveira, 312 F.3d at 1067, which noted that"F'resno Rìfle itself relied on" Cruikshank and Presser, which were "decided beforethe SupremeCourt held that the Bill of Rights is l4

*

irrcorporatedby the lTourteenthAmendment'sDue ProcessClause." Silveira, icÌ.. c o n t i n ue d : Following the now-rejectedBarron v. Baltímore,32 U.S.(7 Pet.)243, I I"..Ed.672 (l 833) (holdingthat the Bill of Rightsdid not apply ro the states),Cruikshank and Presser found that the Second Amendment restrictedthe activities of the federalgovernment,but. not thoseof the states.One point about which we are in agreement with the Fifth Circuit is that Cruikshank andPresser rest on a principlethat is now thoroughtydiscredite d. SeeIimerson,270F.3d, at22l n. 13. r

Ratherthan characterizingthosecasesas restingon a discreditedprinciple, it sufÏces to note that theseold precedentsare simply inapplicable.They held only that the llill of Rights doesnot apply directly ro the states,and did not consider whether the F-ourteenth Amendment incorporatesthoserights. F'orthat, one must look to twentieth-centuryjurisprudence. I'he SecondAmendment describesan explicitly-guaranteedright which is

¡'"

''\

firndamentalin the samesenseas are other substantiverights in the Bill of llights. A right is "f,undamental"if it is "explicitly or implicitly protectedby the Constitution, therebyrequiring strictjudicial scrutiny." San Antonio Inclependent School District v. Il,odriguez,4lI U.S. l, 33 ( lg73). Now that Lleller has recognizedthe SecondAmendment as protecting individual rights, it should be recognizedas incorporatedinto the Fourteenth

l5

& Amendmcnt as are other substantiverights.2ó "'fo view a particularprovision of the Ilill of t{ights with dislavor inevitablyresultsin a constrictedapplicationof it. 'l'his

is to disrespectthe Constitution." Ullmann v. UniteclStates,350lJ.S.4ZZ,

428-29 ( 1956). No constitutionalright is "less 'fundamental' than" others,ancl "we know of no principlcd basison which to createa hierarchyof constitutional valuesor a complementary'sliding scale' of standing. . . ." valley Forge

f'1

Christían College v. Atnericans LIniterJ-fo,Separation of Church & State, Inc., 4 5 4 U . S .4 6 4 ,4 8 4 (1 9 8 2 ). As explained in Planned Parenthoodv. casey, 505 u.s. 933, g4g (l ggz), the FourteenthArnendmentprotectsspecitìc Bill of Rights guaranteesbut is not l i r n i t e dto th e m:

I

"[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteedby the Due ProcessClause cannot be found in or lirnited by the preciseterms of the specific guaranteeselsewhereprovided in the Constitution.This 'liberty' is not a seriesof isolatedpoints pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the fieedom of speech,press,and religion; the right to keep and beararms; the fieedom from unreasonablesearchesand seizures:

2bSee,e'g.,Gitlow v. Nevv York,268U.S.652, 666(1925)("tieedomof speechandof the press. . . are amongthe fundamentalpersonalrights and 'liberties' protectedby the due processclauseof the l4th Amendmentfrom impairmentby the states.");De Jonge v. Oregon,299U.S. 353.364(1937)("theright [to assemble] is onetharcannotbe denied withoutviolatingthosefundamentalprinciples justice of libertyand whichlie at thebaseof * principleswhich theFourteenth all civil andpoliticalinstitutions, Amendmentembodies in the generaltermsof its dueprocess clause.',).

16

Qi

and so on." (Citation omitted.)27 In this post-Heller epoch,the following statementis even more compelling: "Vy'eshould . . . revisit whetherthe requirementsof the SecondAmendmentare incorporatedinto the Due ProcessClauseof the FourteenthAmendrnent."Nordvke v. King,3 I 9 F.3d I I 85, I lg3 &. n.3 &. 4 (9'ncir. 2003)(Gould,c.J., specially concurring) (noting that Hickman and Silveira were wrongly decided and

*

,l

discussingliteratureon incorporation). Another major flaw in Fresno Rtfl" is that it rejectedthe rule that "in interpretinga constitutionalprovision, the fundamentalprinciple of constructionis to give the provision the effect intendedby the framersand the peopleadopting ir." Tom v. sutton,533 F.2d I 101, I 105 (gthcir. I 976). "The court has not hesitatedto re-examinepast decisionsaccording the FourteenthAmendment a less

l' ,t,\

central role in the preservationof basic liberties than that which was contemplated by its Framerswhen they addedthe Amendment to our constitutionalscheme." Malloy v. Hogan,378 U.S. l, 5 (l 964).

I;'resnoRifle disregarded theseprinciplesby refusingto considerwhat it characterizedas"rernarksofvarious legislatorsduring passageof the Freedmen's

'' See Sinctloa Lake OwnersAss'nv. City of Simi Valley,882 F.2d 1398. 1409 (9th Cir. 1 9 8 9 )( s a m e ) .

l7

æ,

llureau Act of 1866,the Civit RightsAct of 1866,and the Civil Rightsact of I [171." 965 F.2d a|730. Actually,the "remarks" directly explainedthe Fourteenth Arnendment- when SenatorJacobM. I{oward introducedthe lìourteenth Âmendment to the Senatein 1866,he referredto "the personalrights guaranteed and securedby the first eight amendmentsof the Constitution;such as . . . the right to keep and beararms. . . . The greatobject of the f,rrstsectionof this amendment is, therefbre,to restrainthe power ol'the Statesand compel them at all times to rcspectthese greatfundamentalguarantees."Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2766 (May 23, 1866),quotedin Duncanv. Louisiana,3gl tJ.S. 145, 166-67 ( 1 9 6 8 )(B l a ck,J., co n cu rri n g ). Moreover, fär more was involved than "remarks." Over two-thirds of the same Congresswhich passedthe FourteenthAmendment also enactedthe lìreedmen'sBureauAct, which - asHeller notes- protectedfrom State

i,) infringement the "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedingsconcerning personal liberty, personalsecurity,and . . . estate,real and personal,including the constitutionalright to bear arms .

This Act, and the companionCivil Rights

Act of 1866,sought to guaranteethe samerights as the FourteenthAmendment.

t * C o n g.C l o b e 3 , 9 thC o n g .,l st

(r866).

( July16,1866)$14. Sess.3842,3850 . l4 Stat,173,176

l8

+J .Jonesv. Alfred I'{. lulctlterco.,392 u.s.409, 423-24,436(196s); Regentsof UniversityoJ'Califurniav. Bakke,438U.S. 265,397-gB(1978) (Marshall,J.). T'heFoutteenthAmendmentwas intendedto eradicatestateaction infiinging on the right to keep and beararms - specificallythe Black Cocles,under which "Negroeswere not allowedto beararms . . . ." Bell v. Maryland,3Tg U.S. 226,247-48 &. n.3 (1964) (Douglas,J., concuming).As explainedby Circuit

L3

J u d g eKl e i n fe l d : )

t

j

After the Civil war, southernstatesbeganpassing"Black Codes," designedto limit the freedomof blacksas much as possible.'fhe "Black Codes" often containedrestrictionson firearm ownershipand possession.. . . A substantialpart of the debatein congress on the FoufteenthAmendment was its necessityto enableblacks to protect thcrnselvesfrom White terrorism and tyranny in the South. Private terrorist organizations,such as the Ku Klux Klan, were abetted by southernstate governments'refusal to protect black citizens,and the violence of such groupscould only be realisticallyresistedwith private firearms. When the stateitself abetsorganizedterrorism, the right of the people to keep anclbear arïns againsta tyrant becomes inseparablefiom the right to selÊdefense.?e

2qSilveirav. Loclg,,er, 328 I.-.3d567,577(9'hCir. 2003)(Kleinfelcl,C.J.,joined by C.J.s Kozinski,O'Scannlain, &'f.G. Nelson,dissenting fiorndenialof rehearing enbanc),citing lìobert .1.Cottrol & RaymondT. Diamond, The SecondAmenclment:Toward an Afro AmerícanislReconsicleration, S0Geo.L.J.309, 344-45(1991);Stephenp. Halbrook,That EveryMan BeArntedI l0- 15(2ded.1994). CircuitJudgeKleinfeldcontinued,328 F.3dat 5 7 7n . 5 3 : ChiefJusticeTaney. . . hadearlierled the Supreme Courtto denycitizenship to blackspreciselybecauseit wasso unthinkablethey shouldhavethe îull rightsof citizenship-including theright "to keepandcarryarmswhereverthey

l9

Ë,

Consistentwith the languageof the lireedmen'sl]ureau Act, Fourteenth z\mendtnentjurisprudencerecognizesprotection from stateinfringementof the "'indefèasibleright of personalsecurity,personalliberty and privateproperty." Grìswold v. Connecticut,3Sl U.S. 479,485 n. (1965). No statemay commit "a violation of [thel constitutional right to personalsecurity,a liberty interest protectedby the fourteenthamendment."30þVoodv. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 591

C, ,.- ì)

( 9 ' h C i r .1 9 8 9 ) .A t t h e c o r e o f t h e r i g h t t o p e r s o n asl e c u r i t y i s t h e r i g h t t o h a v e ¿lrmsto protectoneselfand one's loved ones. "The SecondAmendmentembodies the right to defendoneselfand one's home againstphysical attack." United States v . G o m e 2 , 9 2 F . 3 d , 7 7 0 , 7 7n4. 7 ( g t h C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) .

Iv.

Historically,the Right to Keepand BearArms Has Been Ilegardedas a FundamentalRight Basedon the Englishexperience andthe fìrst Stateconstitutions, the County

i, ì

arguesthatthe right to possess firearmswasnot regardedas fundamental.To the contrary, SecondAmendment rights were viewed as fundamentalas First

went."Dredsc'otrv.sandþrd,60u.s. 393,417, 19[-low.393,r 5 t,.Ed.69r

( r8s7).

3"Seealso UnitedStatesv. Verdugo-Urquidez, 856 F.2d 1214.1220e,h Cir. l gBB),rev'cl on otltergrrtunds494 U.S.259 ( 1990)("The absolute rightsof individualsmayberesolved into the rightof personalsecurity,theright of personalIiberry.and the right to acquireand enjoyproperfy.")(quoting2 J. Kent,COMMENTARIESl (LBZ7)). 20

æ

Amen<Jrnent rights. fhe Englishtlill of Rightsof 1689declaredcertain"true, ancientand indubitablerights," including:"That the Subjectswhich are Protestants, may have r\rms for their Defènsesuitableto their Condition,and as are allowedby L.aw." Án Act Declctringthe Rights & Liberties of the Subject,l w. & M., Sess.2, c.2

€s

( 1689). The only other individualright it recognizedwas the right to petition. Id. A free pressand fieedom of religion were not mentioned. The County notes that the arms right "was a qualified right (by class, rcligion and other factors),and was not enforceableagainstParliament." County LJr.7l. lrurther,"Blackstone characterizedthat right to have arrnsas 'allowed by law' as an aurxiliary,not aprimary right." Id. Blackstonestatedthat the "primary rights, of personalsecurity,personal liberty, and private property," were protectedby auxiliary rights, including

i . )

petition and "the right of having and using arïns for self-preservationand defence. And all theserights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy entire . . . .,, I lJlackstone, Commentaries* I 40. The right "of having arms for their defense suitableto their condition and degree,and such as are allowed by law" reflected "the naturalright of resistanceand self-preservation,when the sanctionsof society and laws are lbund insufficient to restrainthe violence of oppression." Id. at

2l

æ

* 139. St. GeorgeT'ucker,the first commentator on the Constitution,counterposed that the right underthe SecondAmendmentis "without any qualificationas to their conclitionor clegree,as is the casein the British government." I Blackstone, Contmentaries* 143 n.40 (Tucker ed. l B03). 1'hetìnglishBill allowed"due restrictions,"and as the County notes, "Parliamentcurrentlyprohibitsalmostall personalpossessionof handguns."

tr ,. )

County Br. 17. Tucker commentedhow the Englishgame laws only allowedthe gentry to keep arms, and that "no otherscan keep a gun for their defense;so that the whole nation are completely disarmed,and left at the mercy of the government - . . ." Id. at *414 n.3. "ln America we may reasonablyhope that the peoplewill ncvL-rceaseto regardthe right of keeping and bearingarïns as the surestpledgeof their liberty." lcl. Similary, JamesMadison refèrredto "the advantageof being armecl,which

(

)

the Americanspossessover the peopleof almost every other nation," in contrast with the "severalkingdoms o1'Europe,which . . . are afraid to trust the peoplewith arms." The Feder¿¿l¿sr No. 46, [)ocumentary History oJ'the Ratification oJ'the constitution (1984), vol. I 5, at 492-93 (hereafter "Documentary I{istory',). 'fhe

County notesthat Parliamenthad absolutepower to legislateover this

right. County Br. 19, 22. -ïhe Americansrejectedthis power. Madison's notes ))

& lbr his speechintroducingthe Bill of Rightsto Congressin 1789noteda "fallacy . - . espec[ialllyas to English Declfaratioln.o1'Rights- I . mereact of parl[iamenlt. 2. n
arms to protest[an]ts." Papers of JantesMadison

(1979), vol. 12,af 193-94. The EnglishDeclarationwas defrcientbecauseit could be repealedby Parliament,failed to mention a free press,and unduly limited the arms guarantee.

Ë$

'l'he

County claims that " fucker neverexplicitly linked a personalright to

posscssfireartnsto this right of sclf-preservation"and that "Tucker's retèrenceto the Amendmentas the 'true palladium of liberty"' refbrredto Statemilitia powers. County Br. 28, citing Saul Cornell, Sr. George Tucker & the SecondAmendment, 47 Wm. &" Mary L. Rev. 1123, ll25-l l3 I (2006). Yet fucker actually said about the Amendment:

l )

This may be consideredas the true palladium of libeny. . . . The right of self defenseis the fìrst law of nature:in most governmentsit has beenthe study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. wherever. . . the right of the peopleto keepand bear arms is, under any colour or pretextwhatsoever,prohibited, liberty, if not alreadyannihilated,is on the brink of destruction. '['ucker,

View oJ-the Constitution,in I Blackstone,Commentariesat 300 (-['ucker

ed. 1803).31 -ìr See further Stephen P. Halbrook,"St. George 'fucker's SecondAmendment: 'The f)ec
ی

'l'he

County further asserts:"At the time of the Founding until well after the

Sccond Amendmentwas ratified in 1791,eight of the original l3 Statesconnecticut, Delawarc,Maryland, New [{ampshire,NL-wJersey,New york, Iìhode Island,and South Carolina- had no provision in their constitutionseven mentioning arrns. . . ." County Fr.32. This is unsurprisingin that most of these 13

states had no bill of rights and none mentionedfree speech.32 'l'he

right to arms was consideredfundamentalin each of the original states.

See StephenP. Flalbrook, TheFounders' SecondAmendment(2008), chapters6 &7 (first stateconstitutions),9-l I (statedemandsfor federalbill of rights). Nine states adoptedan arms guaranteeand/or demandedone for the federal Constitution. Five stateshad constitutionswhich did not explicitly recognizethe rights to free speechor to arms,and some limited religious freedom. The right to

a

have arms was as fundamentalas free speech. Virginia was the first stateto adopt a bill of rights, which recognizeda

2. 120(Spring2007\. http://stephenhalbrook.com/law review articles/Deconstructing_The_True_Palladium of-_t-iberry.pdl. r' -fhe Countyturthersuggests thatof the numerousarmsguaranrees eventuallyadopted, diffe'ringlanguageimpliesthatthe right is not fundamental.CountyBr. at 47. Sincethe Statesalso adopteclvariedprovisionson freedomof speechand religion,that argument cannotbe takenseriouslv.

24

& militia "composedol'the body of the people,trainedto arms," but did not cxplicitly mentionarms or speechas a "right." Va. Dec. of Rights(1776), Art. XIII. While not formally proposed,'['homasJeffersonwrote a draftprotecting ftcedom of religion and the press,and that "No freemanshall ever be debarredthe use of-arrrs." Papers of ThomasJefferson(1950), vol. I , at344-45. Virginia later cfemandedthat.the proposed U.S. Constitutionbe amendedto declare:"That the

é3 j

people have a right to keep and bear arms . . . ." Elliot ed., Debatesín the Several State Conventionson the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (1836), vol. 3, at 658-59 (hereafter" Debates"). Pennsylvaniawas the first stateto declare:"'fhat the people have a right to bear arms I'or the defenseof themselves,and the state. . . ." Pa. Declarationof lìights, Art. XIII (1776). Vermont adoptedan identical provision. Vt. Const.,Art. l,$ l5(t777\. North Carolina declared:"That the Peoplehave a right to bear Arms for the Detènseof the State. . . ." N.c. Dec. of RightsxvII (1776). Irs drafrsmen included membersof the ContinentalCongress33 who wrote: "It is the Right of every English Subjectto be preparedwith Weaponsfor his Defense." Not,th

-['hey were convention PresidentRichard Caswell and JosephHerves. Colonial Records " oJNorth Carolina( 1890),vol. 10.at 918-19.

25

Å't

Carolina Gazette(l.Jewbern),July 7, 1775, at 2, col. 3. North Carolina later dcmandedthat the federalConstitutiondeclare:"That the peoplc have a right to kcep and beararms . . . ." Eltiot ed.,Debates,vol. 4, atZ44. New York's constitutionhad no bill of rights and did not mentionspeechor arms. N.Y. Const.(1777). [t would demandthat the FederalConstitutiondeclare: "'fhat the peoplehave a right to keep and bear arms . - . ." Elliot ed.,Debafes,vol.

tj

| , at 328. Massachusetts cleclared"unalienablerights" of men, including that of "defendingtheir lives and liberties." Mass. Dec. of Rights,Art. I (1790). It lhrther declared:"The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common dcfence." Id. hrt. XVII. SamuelAdams later proposedthat the LJ.S.Constitution "be never construedto authorizeCongress. . . to preventthe people of the United

r )

States,who are peaceablecitizens,from keeping their own arms . . . ." I)ocumentary History (2000), vol. 6, at 1453. New flampshire declared"inherent rights," including "defending life and liberty." N.l-1.Bill of Rights,Art. II (1784). It did not mentiona personalright to speechor arms. But New I'Iampshiredemandedthat the U.S. Constitution provide: "Congressshall never disarm any citizen,unlesssuch as are or have been in actualrebellion." I)ocumentaryHistory (1995),vol. lB, at l8g.

26

&

Rhodelslanddicfnot adopta constitutionin the fbundingperiod,but clcrnarrclecl that the [J.S. Constitution state:"'['hat the people have a right to keep a n d b e ara rl rts...."

E l l i o t e d .,Debales, vol. 1, at335. Its fir stconstitution

cleclared:" fhe right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." R.l. Const.,A.rt.I, $ 22 (1842\. SoL¡thCarolina'sconstitutionhad no bill of rights,but it decriedBritish r

ì

oppressionagainst"unarmed people,"justifying the colonists in "taking up arms . . . to delènd themselvesand their propertiesagainstlawlessinvasionsand depredations."S.C. Const.(1776). New Jersey'sconstitutionhad no bill of rights,and it limited civil rights to Protestants.N.J. Const.,Art. XVIII (1776). Georgia'sconstitutionhad no bill of rights. Ga. const. (1777). lrleithermentionedspeechor arms.

') a' \ . -_ ' Ï

Delaware'sDeclarationof Rights did not mention speechor arms, and

rccognized rightsonly to Christians.Del. Dec.of Rights,Art. III (1776). Maryland'swasthe same.Md. Dec.of Rights,Art. XXXIIT ( I 776). Connecticutdid not adopt a constitutionin the founding period, but its inhabitants were "trained to arms." Richard Price, Observations on the Importance oJ the ¡lmerican Revolution (1784), 58. Its fìrst constitution declared:"Every citizen has a right to beararms in defenseof himself and the State." Conn. Const.,

27

&

A f t .r ,l i l 7 ( r 8 1 8 ) . In sum,the EnglishBill of Rightsrecognized only two individualrightspctition and arms.

'I'he

Americanshad more expansiveviews of the armsright,

arrd, by adoptingstateguaranteesas well as the SecondAmendment,removedthe lcgislativepower to infiinge on it. I{istorically,the right to keepand beararms Ë?

was regardedas fundarnental. V.

-fhc

Prohibition llere Violates the Right to Keep ancl Bear Arms

AlamedaCounty Code $ 9.12.120(b)provides:"Every personwho brings onto or possesses on County property a firearm, loadedor unloaded,or amrnunition fbr a firearm is guilty of a rnisdemeanor."This is facially overbroad, in that it is not a reasonableregulationof the place of exerciseof the right to keep and beararms. It is unconstitutionalas applied, in that its purposeis to ban gun shows on County property, where other lawful productsare allowed to be sold. i

First, the ordinanceprohibits possessionof a firearm on any county property ratherthan specific,sensitiveCounty places. Ãs Iteller noted,"nothing in our opinion should be taken to castdoubt on . . . laws forbidding the carrying of firearmsin sensitiveplacessuchas schoolsand governmentbuildings. . . ." IZB S .C t .a t 2 8 1 6 - 1 7 . I{owever, in invalidating the D.c. handgunban, Heller approvedof a

28

w clccisionwhich "held that a statutethat forbadeopenly carryinga pistol 'publicly Ör privately, wÌthout regard lo titne or place, or circuntstances,'. . . violatedthe stateconstitutionalprovision 1,'vhichit equatedwith the SecondAmendment)." I leller, 128 S. Ct. at 28 I 8, quotingAndrewsv. State,50 Tenn. I 65, I 87 ( I 871) (crnphasisadded). The ordinancehereis overbroadbecauseit includesno rcasonabletime, place,or mannerrestrictions.

& , ''\

tt

Second,the purposeof the ordinanceis to prevent gun shows at the County

,l

fàirglounds,where other lawlul productsare allowed to be bought and sold. In explaining the right to keep arms for self defense,Heller approvedthe fbllowing language:"[tf]he right to keep arms involves, necessarily,the right to use such anns for all the ordinary purposes,and in all the ordinary modes usual in the country, and to which arms are adapted,limited by the duties of a good citizen in ¡ -\

times of peace."128 S. Ct. at 2809,quotingAndre,pvs,50'Ienn. at 178. In the precedingsentence,Andrews stated: 'fhe

right to keep arms,necessarilyinvolves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a stateof effrciency for use, and to purchase and provideammunitionsuitablefor sucharms,and to keep them in repair.And clearly for this purpose,a man would have the right to carry them to and from his home, and no one could claim that the Legislaturehad the right ro punish him fbr it, withour violating this clauseof the Constitution.

Id,

29

&

The constitutionalright to possessan object, whether it be a book or a lìrearm, impliesthe right to buy and sell such object. "Without thoseperipheral rights the specifìcrights would be lesssecure." Griswolclv. Connecticut.38l U.S. 479,482-83 (1965)(holding that free speechand pressinclude"the right to distribute, the right to receive, . . . and freedom to teach"). In light of the above, the Orclinance,by prohibiting mere possessionof a

v; ,: . r

r'i

lirearm clnCounty property, infringes on the right to keep and beararïns,which is

t'

guaranteedby the Secondand FourteenthAmendments. CONCLUSION 'Ihe

Court should reversethe judgment of the district court, declareas void

Alameda County Code $ 9.12.I20(b),and remandthe casefor an appropriate i njunction againstenfbrcementthereof. Date: September29,2008

RespectfullySubmitted, National Rifle Associationof America, [nc., & California Rifle & Pistol Association Amici Curiae ¡

.v.

l

:

By CounselC. D. Michel

30

&

CEIìTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I cerrilythat,pursuantto Fed.R. App. P.32(a)(7)(B)andNinthCircuitRule 32-l , the attach ed ctm.ici curiaebrief is proportionately spaced,hasa typefaceof l4 pointsandcontains7000words. I)atc:Septernber 29, 2008 &È

Respectful ly Submitted, NationalRifle Association of America,Inc., & Califiornia Rifle & PistolAssociation Amici Curiae

By CounselC. D. Michel

¡:-- ì\.

3l

&

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hercbycertiB/that I causedtwo copiesof the foregoingto be mailedlirst class,postage prepaidon this 30,hday of September, 200g,t
ì

SayreWeaver,Esq. RichardsWatson& Cershon 355 SouthGrandAve. Los Angeles, CA 9001l-3t0l 'l'.

PeterPierce,Esq. RichardsWatson& Gershon 355 SouthGrandAve. [-osAngeles, CA 90071-3 l0l IìichardWinnie,Esq. AlamedaCountyCounsel l22l OakSrreet,Suite463 Oakland,California94612-4296 ( . , j

i ' ''--''' \¿ - -.-,( I\ , {} \./ I /

-.

^:

'¡r

ì

I

.t.

C. D. MTCHEL

)z