Posts Tagged ‘amicus brief’

As courts across the country hear Second Amendment challenges against important state gun laws, the Law Center is weighing in, turning our legal expertise into a series of amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs filed in several significant cases.

Three of these cases — Moore v. Madigan and Shepard v. Madigan in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and People v. Aguilar in the Illinois Supreme Court — involve Second Amendment challenges to Illinois statutes that prohibit the carrying of firearms (either openly or concealed) in public places. Illinois is the only state the continues to prohibit both open and concealed carry. In all three cases, the Law Center briefs argue that: 1) carrying firearms outside the home for self-defense is not within the scope of the Second Amendment; and 2) even if possessing firearms in public is considered within the scope of Second Amendment protection, Illinois’ ban on carrying guns in public is constitutional.

We made similar arguments in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Hightower v. City of Boston. The Hightower case involves a Second Amendment challenge to Massachusetts’ firearm licensing law, which enables law enforcement to deny an application to carry a concealed weapon if the applicant fails to demonstrate he or she is a person suitable to own or possess such firearms. Our Hightower brief argues that the Second Amendment does not apply, and that even if it did, the “suitable person” standard easily survives scrutiny.

On November 18, 2011, the Law Center filed an amicus brief in Wilson v. Cook County, a case currently before the Illinois Supreme Court that involves a Second Amendment challenge to Cook County, Illinois’ ordinance prohibiting the sale or possession of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines.

The Law Center’s brief, which was joined by the City of Chicago, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, and the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, argues that the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines. Even if the court finds that assault weapons and large capacity magazines do implicate the Second Amendment, the brief continues, Cook County’s ordinance banning them would satisfy review under any level of scrutiny.

States that have strong laws regulating the carrying of concealed weapons currently face a number of significant lawsuits challenging these laws on Second Amendment grounds. On September 30, the Law Center urged the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reject a Second Amendment challenge to California’s concealed carry law in an amicus brief in Richards v. Prieto. Richards is the second of a number of similar challenges to laws nationwide to be reviewed by a federal appellate court, following Peruta v. County of San Diego.

The Law Center’s brief was joined by the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, and San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón. The brief urges the Ninth Circuit to find that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess a loaded, hidden handgun in public, and that the California law is vital to protect the safety of law enforcement and the general public. The Law Center is very grateful to Covington & Burling LLP for authoring the brief.

In states like California, where the gun lobby has failed to weaken concealed weapons licensing laws in the legislature, it now seeks to overturn those laws in the courts. The Law Center recently urged the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reject a Second Amendment challenge to California’s concealed carry law in an amicus brief filed on August 19 in Peruta v. County of San Diego. The Peruta case is the first of a number of similar challenges to laws nationwide to be reviewed by a federal appellate court.

Joined by the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, and San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón, the Law Center’s brief urges the Ninth Circuit to find that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess a loaded, hidden handgun in public, and that the California law is vital to protect the safety of law enforcement and the general public. The Law Center is very grateful to Covington & Burling LLP for authoring the brief.