Wrenn v. District of Columbia: Joining with the Brady Center to Defend the District’s Concealed Carry Permitting System

Overlooking-DC

Case Information: Wrenn v. District of Columbia, No. 15-7057 (D.C. Cir. Brief Filed Sept. 3, 2015)

At Issue: This cases challenges the constitutionality of the District’s regulations regarding the issuance of concealed carry permits. Similar to California law, the District requires that a CCW applicant show a specific need for a permit and a general self-defense interest is not enough to meet this burden. These “may-issue” systems are in place in several states across the country and are associated with a reduction in crime, including aggravated assault. However, the district court found that these laws violate the Second Amendment and the case is now on appeal with the D.C. Circuit.

Our Amicus Brief: The Law Center joined an amicus brief coordinated by the Brady Center that defends the constitutionality of the District’s concealed carry regime and argues that this regime does not violate the Second Amendment. The brief also focuses on the relevant evidence provided by social science research and the perspective of law enforcement with respect to the regulation of concealed carry in public places. The brief argues that there is a strong policy justification for a concealed carry permitting regime that requires applicants to demonstrate an elevated level of need before a permit may be issued.

Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Department: Amicus Brief Arguing Against the Use of Strict Scrutiny in Second Amendment Cases

mentalhealth-cropped

Case Information: Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 13-1876 (6th Cir. Brief Filed Aug. 19, 2015)

At issue: This case presents an as-applied challenge to the federal statute that prohibits firearm possession for individuals who have been involuntary committed to a mental institution. The plaintiff, Clifford Tyler, had been involuntarily committed to a mental institution in the 1980s, but had a clean record and bill of health since that time and argued that the statute, as applied to him, violated the Second Amendment. The Sixth Circuit agreed with this argument and, in doing so, became the first federal court of appeals to generally endorse strict scrutiny as the appropriate level of review for Second Amendment challenges. This case has important implications for how courts around the country analyze laws designed to reduce gun crime and violence.

The Law Center’s Brief: Our brief argues that the Sixth Circuit was wrong in its general conclusion that strict scrutiny should be the default level of review for Second Amendment cases. As the harshest level of review available, strict scrutiny is inappropriate in the context of firearms regulations that have been proven to save lives. If any heightened scrutiny is in fact mandated by the Second Amendment, intermediate scrutiny is the more appropriate level of review. Our brief argues that it is not true that laws that burden fundamental rights automatically trigger strict scrutiny and that several of the factors relied on in applying strict scrutiny in other contexts are not present in the Second Amendment arena. Unlike other constitutional rights, the exercise of Second Amendment rights inherently increase the risk of injury and death to others. Moreover, the Heller court itself implicitly rejected strict scrutiny when it classified several categories of laws, such as felon-in-possession laws, as “presumptively valid.”

Mance v. Lynch: Amicus Brief Defending Federal In-State FFL Requirement for Handgun Sales

mulitpleguns-cropped2

Case Information: Mance v. Lynch, No. 15-10311 (5th Cir. Brief Filed July 20, 2015)

At Issue: Plaintiffs in this case argue that the federal laws requiring out-of-state handgun purchases to be completed through an in-state federal firearms licensee (“FFL”) violate the Second Amendment. In other words, the challenged laws require a person wishing to buy a handgun in another state to have the purchase completed by an FFL that operates in their state of residence. Plaintiffs in this case are residents of the District of Columbia and wanted to purchase a firearm in Texas, but did not do so because of the extra costs associated with the in-state FFL requirement. The district court for the Northern District of Texas found that this requirement unduly restricts access to firearm markets and therefore violates the Second Amendment. The case is now on appeal before the Fifth Circuit.

The Law Center’s Brief: Our amicus brief argues that the challenged federal laws are compatible with the Second Amendment because they place such a small burden on a citizen’s ability to keep a firearm in the home for self-defense. The brief argues that laws imposing background checks and regulating large capacity ammunition magazines are “presumptively lawful” and not protected at all by the Second Amendment. Even if these regulations implicate the Second Amendment, both provisions survive constitutional scrutiny because they are reasonably related to the important governmental objective of protecting public safety and the safety of law enforcement officers.

Read the full text of our amicus brief here.

 

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Hickenlooper: Amicus Brief Defending Colorado Law Prohibiting Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines

Sunnyvale

Case Information: Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Hickenlooper, No. 2014-CA-002178, (Colo. Ct. App. Brief Filed June 16, 2015)

At Issue: In this state court case, plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of Colorado laws, enacted in 2013, that, among other things, generally prohibit large capacity ammunition magazines (defined as magazines which can hold more than 15 rounds). Plaintiffs argue that these laws violate the Colorado State Constitution’s right to bear arms provision, which states that “[t]he right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property . . . shall be called in question.” The district court upheld the laws, finding them to be a “reasonable” exercise of the state’s police power, specifically designed to protect public safety. The case is now on appeal with the Colorado State Court of Appeals.

The Law Center’s Brief: Our brief makes the argument that large capacity ammunition magazines are not “arms,” and therefore are not protected by the right to bear arms provision contained at Article II § 13 of the Colorado Constitution. The brief argues that large capacity ammunition magazines are non-essential accessories that are not required to operate the vast majority of firearms. Moreover, these magazines are disproportionately used in mass shootings and attacks on police officers and their use is associated with a large increase in the number of people injured and killed in a shooting.

Read the full text of our amicus brief here.

 

Colorado Outfitters v. Hickenlooper: Amicus Brief Defending Colorado Laws Requiring Universal Background Checks and Prohibiting Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines

prohibitedpeople-cropped

Case Information: Colorado Outfitters, et al. v. Hickenlooper, et al., No. 14-1290 (10th Cir. Brief Filed Apr. 29, 2015)

At Issue: In this case, plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of Colorado laws, enacted in 2013, that require background checks for private firearm sales and transfers and that prohibit large capacity ammunition magazines (defined as magazines which can hold more than 15 rounds). These laws were upheld in their entirety by the district court and plaintiffs have appealed the case to the Tenth Circuit.

The Law Center’s Brief: Our amicus brief argues that these laws are compatible with the Second Amendment because they place such a small burden on a citizen’s ability to keep a firearm in the home for self-defense. The brief argues that laws imposing background checks and regulating large capacity ammunition magazines are “presumptively lawful” and not protected at all by the Second Amendment. Even if these regulations implicate the Second Amendment, both provisions survive constitutional scrutiny because they are reasonably related to the important governmental objective of protecting public safety and the safety of law enforcement officers.

Read the full text of our amicus brief here.

 

Harris v. Silvester: Amicus Brief Defending California’s Mandatory 10-Day Waiting Period for Firearm Purchases

calendar-waitingperiods

Case Information: Harris v. Silvester,  No. 14-16840 (9th Cir., Amicus Brief Filed Apr. 1, 2015)

At Issue: This case presents an as-applied challenge to California’s 10-day waiting period for firearm purchases for individuals that already possess a firearm and that pass a background check before the 10-day period is over. The district court ruled that, as to these individuals, California’s law violates the Second Amendment. The state has appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit.

The Law Center’s Brief: Our amicus brief argues that the district court erred by applying an overly-strict form of review to California’s law, which serves several important interests, all related to protecting public safety. The law provides an important cooling down period, allows more time for investigation of potential illegal straw purchases, and does not violate the Second Amendment, even with respect to individuals who already possess a firearm. The brief will also argue that the law is “longstanding” in California—dating back to the 1920’s—and is therefore “presumptively valid” under established Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Read the full text of our amicus brief here.

 

Wal-Mart v. Trinity Wall Street: Amicus Brief in Support of Shareholder Proposal Requiring Wal-Mart to Consider the Public Safety Implications of Selling Assault Rifles

newtown-angels-600

Case Information: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Trinity Wall Street, No. 14-4764 (3d Cir. Filed Feb. 11, 2015)

At Issue: Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest retailer, sells AR-15s and other similar assault rifles, which come equipped with high capacity magazines. The Trinity shareholder proposal at issue in this case would obligate the Wal-Mart Board to oversee the creation and implementation of standards for when to sell products raising public safety and other specified concerns. The proposal was motivated in part by the tragic shooting at Newtown and Trinity’s resultant desire to see Wal-Mart exercise more oversight of products with special business risks, including assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. While the resolution would not ban the sale of any product, it would require Wal-Mart to at least consider the implications of selling assault rifles equipped with high-capacity magazines. The district court ruled that the proposal could not be excluded from proxy materials sent by Wal-Mart to its shareholders for their consideration. Wal-Mart appealed this decision to the Third Circuit.

The Law Center’s Brief: The amicus brief supports Trinity by arguing that the district court’s opinion is consistent with SEC rules and guidance regarding the submission of shareholder proposals, and the District Court properly concluded that the Trinity proposal involves a significant policy issue appropriate for shareholder consideration. The brief emphasizes that, among the hundreds of thousands of items Wal-Mart sells, assault rifles and high-capacity magazines stand apart because of their capacity to kill large numbers of people in a very short period of time. On average, shooters who use assault weapons or large capacity magazines in mass shootings shoot 151% more people and kill 63% more people than those who do not.

Read the full text of our amicus brief here.

 

Kolbe v. O’Malley: Amicus Brief in Support of Maryland Law Prohibiting Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Case Information: Kolbe, et al. v. O’Malley, et al., No. 14-1945 (4th Cir., Amicus Brief Filed Jan. 7, 2015)

At issue: This case is a challenge to Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act of 2013, passed in the wake of the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which, among other things, prohibits assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines. The law was upheld by the district court and plaintiffs have appealed to the Fourth Circuit.

The Law Center’s Brief: Our amicus brief, filed along with Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, defends Maryland’s law by arguing that assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines are military-style weapons, ill-suited to self-defense purposes, that fall outside of the scope of the Second Amendment. The brief makes the argument that, even if these weapons are protected by the Second Amendment, the law is constitutional because it is reasonably related to the important government interest of protecting citizens and law enforcement officers from gun violence.

Read the full text of our amicus brief here.

 

Heller v. District of Columbia (“Heller III”): Amicus Brief in Support of Washington, D.C. Firearm Registration Laws

Overlooking-DC

Case Information: Heller v. District of Columbia (“Heller III”), No. 14-7071 (D.C. Cir., Amicus Brief Filed Dec. 12, 2014)

At Issue: This case was brought in the aftermath of the landmark Heller decision in which the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban. After Heller, the D.C. Council enacted the Firearms Registration Amendment Act (FRA), which amended what remained of the District’s gun laws in order to create a new and constitutionally compliant scheme for regulating firearms. Plaintiffs challenged every aspect of D.C.’s comprehensive firearms registration program. The court found that the challenged laws, which require residents to register all firearms with local authorities, were sufficiently related to the District’s goals of ensuring public safety and protecting District police. The court brushed aside the argument that the registration system was invalid because it would be circumvented by criminals and emphasized that “[a]lthough the various registration requirements at issue will not prevent all criminals from obtaining firearms, it surely will prevent some from doing so. That is enough.” The decision has been appealed to the D.C. Circuit.

The Law Center’s Brief: The Law Center joined onto a brief with a wide variety of other gun violence prevention groups, including the Brady Center and the Violence Policy Center, arguing that the District’s registration requirements are completely compatible with the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court’s Heller decision and subsequent case law. These requirements do not place any burden on self-defense and ample evidence exists to demonstrate their role in reducing gun violence and protecting public safety.

Read the full text of our amicus brief here.

 

Friedman v. City of Highland Park: Amicus Brief in Support of Local Ordinance Banning Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Magazines

assault-weapon

Case Information: Friedman, et al. v. City of Highland Park, et al., No. 14-3091 (7th Cir. Brief Filed Dec. 10, 2014)

At Issue: Gun lobby plaintiffs brought this challenge to an ordinance passed by the City of Highland Park, Illinois in the wake of the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, which prohibits the possession, sale, or manufacture of assault weapons and large capacity magazines (defined as magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition). The district court upheld the ordinance, finding it to have a “close fit” with the “stated objective of providing for the protection and safety of its inhabitants.” Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Seventh Circuit.

The Law Center’s Brief: Our amicus brief, joined by the City of Chicago and the Cook County State’s Attorney, argues that the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court and other courts, does not protect a right to own weapons that are designed for a battlefield and are unsuited for lawful self-defense in the home. The brief notes that every court to have considered challenges to laws banning assault weapons or large capacity magazines since the Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald has upheld those laws. The brief argues in the alternative that, even if the Second Amendment does protect these dangerous weapons, their regulation is still constitutional under intermediate review, which is the only appropriate level of judicial review in this context and simply requires that a law be “reasonably related” to an “important” government interest. There is no question that the challenged law passes this test.

Read the full text of our amicus brief here.