ChicagoGunCase.com

On our case filings page, you will find the amici brief filed in support of the petitioners, or in support of neither side.

We’ll review some of the more interesting briefs soon….

I have omitted only two briefs.  One was filed without sufficient notice (one day) and Chicago is understandably objecting to it. If the motion to file that brief is granted, I’ll post it.  The other needs to be reprinted. It’s not a very important brief in any event.

Petitioner’s Brief for McDonald v. Chicago

The Second Amendment Foundation today filed its much-anticipated brief to the United States Supreme Court in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, which challenges the constitutionality of that city’s ban on handguns.
SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) and four individual plaintiffs. They are represented by attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued the landmark Heller case before the high court in 2008, leading to a ruling that the Second Amendment affirms and protects an individual right to keep and bear arms beyond the scope of serving in a militia. Gura is joined in the effort by Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.

The McDonald case not only challenges the Chicago ban, but also brings up the question of application of the right to keep and bear arms to the states through the 14th Amendment.

“Our filing today will help establish that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of American citizenship no city official can violate,” Gura said.

Alan Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president, added, “We brought this case because the Chicago ban has denied law-abiding citizens the exercise of a basic civil right for more than 20 years. We are delighted to bring this action with our colleagues  in Illinois because this kind of onerous regulation simply cannot go unchallenged.”

That’s the title of a panel discussion later today at my alma mater, Georgetown, at which I’ll be appearing alongside Prof. Randy Barnett, Prof. Kurt Lash, and David Gans of the Constitutional Accountability Center.  For those who can’t attend, there’s always the internet.

Oh, and the answer to the above-question: we hope so!  Brief on Monday…

Yesterday morning, Chicago and Oak Park sought a three-week extension of time to file their brief. We had no problem with one additional week, but three would have been problematic. The NRA supported our position.

The Court split the difference, and so those of you eagerly anticipating the Chicago/Oak Park brief will now have to wait until December 30.  Our reply brief is now due January 29.

Also today we received word that the Brady Center will be filing a brief… in support of neither party. That would have to be filed by the deadline for our amici, which is November 23.

As the case ramps up, and we have more information to share, this site will become a bit more active.

On Monday, we’re going to be filing the opening brief on the merits before the Supreme Court. Check in around mid-day if you’re interested.

Also on Monday, we expect to see filed (and of course, we’ll post here) the NRA’s “Respondents’ Brief.”  If this sounds strange to you, you’re right: it is an unusual set of circumstances, but one dictated by the Court’s rules.

In the lower courts, NRA and affiliated individuals filed several companion cases against Chicago and its gun-banning suburbs. The other defendants folded, but Chicago and the Village of Oak Park soldiered on. The three cases – ours (McDonald), NRA v. Chicago, and NRA v. Oak Park – were considered together in the Court of Appeals. Under the Supreme Court’s rules,

“All parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is sought to be reviewed are deemed parties entitled to file documents in this Court . . . All parties other than the petitioner are considered respondents, but any respondent who supports the position of a petitioner shall meet the petitioner’s time schedule for filing documents.” Rule 12.6.

So NRA is a “Respondent in Support of Petitioners,” and Oak Park is a Respondent.  The practical consequence is that NRA’s brief needs a red Respondent’s cover instead of a green Amicus one, their brief is due the same date as ours instead of a week later, and their word limit goes from 9,000 to 15,000.

We’re informed Oak Park will not be filing a separate brief, but will be joining Chicago’s efforts.

Here is what we can look forward to in the coming months…

Our opening brief is due November 16.

The city’s brief is then due December 16.

Our reply brief is due January 15.

The case is expected to be argued in February, with a decision expected by the end of June, 2010.

Read the the U.S. Supreme Court docket

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will hear the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, and decide whether the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment protects Americans from overreaching state and local governments.

At issue is a 27-year-old Chicago law banning handguns, requiring the annual taxation of firearms, and otherwise interfering with the right of law-abiding individuals to keep guns at home for self-defense. The case was brought on behalf of four Chicago residents, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Illinois State Rifle Association.

Last year, in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, as that case concerned the actions of the District of Columbia government, a federal entity, the high court was not called upon to decide whether the right bound states and local governments. Over the years, almost the entire Bill of Rights has been held to apply to state and local governments by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

“The freedoms we enjoy as Americans are secured to us against violation by all levels of government,” noted Alan Gura, of Gura & Possessky, PLLC, lead counsel for the McDonald plaintiffs. “State and local politicians should be on notice: the Second Amendment is a normal part of the Bill of Rights, and it is coming to your town.”

Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident since 1952 who led the fight to integrate his union local in the 1960s and is a plaintiff in the case, welcomed the news.

“I am grateful the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case,” McDonald said. “I now pray that the Court secures me and all other law-abiding citizens the right to defend ourselves and our families.”

SAF founder Alan Gottlieb said the case is of paramount importance to American citizens, to see that their constitutional rights are respected not only by the Congress, but by state and local governments.

“SAF was delighted to bring this case in cooperation with the Illinois State Rifle Association and the four local plaintiffs because a gun ban is no less onerous to civil rights in Chicago than it was in the District of Columbia,” Gottlieb observed. “Such a law cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged.”

Chicago attorney David Sigale commented, “The City of Chicago cannot take from millions of Americans the fundamental freedom of self-defense in one’s own home. We are confident the Court will stand on the side of the law-abiding citizens and the Bill of Rights.”

“We’re pleased to hear that the Supreme Court has decided to take a look at Chicago’s gun laws,” added ISRA President Don Moran. “In this time of economic uncertainty and increasing lawlessness, the good people of Chicago ought not have to choose between violating Chicago’s gun ban, and protecting themselves and their loved ones.”

The Chicago gun ban challenge will likely be among the most closely watched constitutional law cases in decades. At stake is not just the question of whether the Second Amendment secures the right to arms against state and local governments, but also the extent to which the Supreme Court preserves individual liberty against encroachment by state and local governments.

Oral argument will possibly be scheduled early this coming winter, with a decision expected by June 2010. Gura will argue the case on behalf of the McDonald plaintiffs.

Back on August 5, the city filed its opposition to our petition for certiorari.

Today, we’ve submitted our reply.

And now, we wait.  The petition will be considered at the Court’s first conference after the long summer break.

The Constitutional Accountability Center has weighed in with an excellent amicus brief supporting our petition to the Supreme Court, filed on behalf of constitutional law professors Richard Aynes, Jack Balkin, Randy Barnett, Michael Curtis, Michael Lawrence, and Adam Winkler.

We are gratified that thirty-four of the states have weighed in support of our case at the Supreme Court.

Texas, leading a group of thirty-three states, filed one amicus brief urging the Court to hear our case and hold the Second Amendment binds state and local governments. California separately filed an amicus brief urging the same.

Here is the press release from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott:

Texas Attorney General Abbott Files Brief with United States Supreme Court; Takes Action to Protect Texans’ Second Amendment Rights

Texas Amicus Brief Joined by 32 State Attorneys General

AUSTIN - Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott today filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court that defends Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. The amicus brief, which was filed on behalf of 33 state attorneys general, supports a legal challenge by Otis McDonald, a community activist who lives in a high-crime Chicago neighborhood. McDonald’s work to improve his neighborhood has subjected him to violent threats from drug dealers, but city ordinances prohibit him from obtaining a handgun to protect himself. The state attorneys general argue that cities cannot simply ignore the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and impose a blanket ban on handguns.

“Last year, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and held that the Second Amendment protects individual Americans’ right to keep and bear arms,” Attorney General Abbott said. “The brief filed today urges the nation’s highest court to hear community activist Otis McDonald’s challenge to an ordinance that prohibits him from possessing a handgun to protect himself from the criminals he has worked to eradicate from his high-crime neighborhood. Today’s amicus brief reflects an effort by more than thirty attorneys general to defend law-abiding Americans’ constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.”

The states’ amicus brief says: “The right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment is not just a ‘fundamental’ liberty interest. In the Anglo-American tradition, it is among the most fundamental of rights because it is essential to securing all our other liberties. The Founders well understood that, without the protections afforded by the Second Amendment, all of the other rights and privileges ordinarily enjoyed by Americans would be vulnerable to governmental acts of oppression.”

According to the states’ amicus brief, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies to states under the Fourteenth Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms is a right that states have long recognized. In fact, 44 state constitutions protect their residents’ right to bear arms. The brief adds: “The submission of this amicus brief provides further evidence of the States’ understanding of the fundamental importance of the arms-bearing right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

“Just as local governments cannot constitutionally act as ‘laboratories’ for initiatives to abrogate their citizens’ right to free speech or their freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, nor can they nullify the fundamental right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment,” the amicus brief states.

“The states’ amicus brief acknowledges that some firearms regulations are permissible, including in circumstances where they are necessary to prevent violent felons from owning guns.

The states ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear both the McDonald case and National Rifle Association of America Inc., et al v. City of Chicago, Ill., et al.

The states that joined Texas in the amicus brief are: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming.