Brief Amicus Curiae of Claremont Institute's Center

i No. 20-843 In the Supreme Court of the United States NEW YORK RIFLE & PISTOL ASS’N, ET AL., Petitioners, v. KEVIN P. BRUEN, ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari To the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE THE CLAREMONT INSTITUTE’S CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS John C. Eastman Counsel of Record Anthony T. Caso CONSTITUTIONAL COUNSEL GROUP 174 W Lincoln Ave, #620 Anaheim, CA 92805 (877) 855-3330 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE............................. 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 3 I. The Right to Bear Arms Protected by the Second Amendment Is a Codification of the Natural Right of Self-Defense. .................................. 3 II. Infringement of a Textually Explicit Fundamental Right Should Be Reviewed Under Strict Scrutiny. ................................................ 5 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 10 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964) .................................................. 6 District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) ........................................ passim District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2010) .................................................. 3 Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972) .................................................. 6 Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618 (1995) .................................................. 9 Frazier v. Heebe, 482 U.S. 641 (1987) .................................................. 8 Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ................................ 7 Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................... 7 Kachalsky v. Cty. of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012) ........................... 1, 6, 7, 9 Kadrmas v. Dickinson Pub. Sch., 487 U.S. 450 (1988) .................................................. 6 Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621 (1969) .................................................. 6 McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014) .................................................. 8 Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2013) ............................... 3, 9 iii N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. City of New York, 883 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2018), cert. granted, 139 S. Ct. 939 (Jan. 22, 2019), vacated as moot and remanded, 140 S. Ct. 1525 (Apr. 27, 2020) ............. 6 National Rifle Ass’n v. BATF, 700 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 2012) ................................... 7 Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) .................................................... 6 Peruta v. California, 137 S. Ct. 1995 (2017) ........................................ 1, 10 Police Dept. of the City of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972) .................................................... 6 San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973) ...................................................... 6 Silvester v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 945 (2018) ................................................ 9 Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622 (1994) (“Turner I”) ............................. 8 Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (1997) (“Turner II”) ........................... 7 United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938) .................................................. 5 Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) .................................................. 8 Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) .................................................. 6 Wrenn v. D.C., 864 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2017) .................................. 8 iv Statutes N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f) ..................................... 1 Other Authorities Br. of Plaintiffs/Appellants, New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Beach, No. 19-156, Dkt. #47 (2nd Cir. March 20, 2019) ..................................... 10 Burnett, H. Sterling, National Center For Policy Analysis, TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRIERS: LAW-ABIDING PUBLIC BENEFACTORS 1 (2000), https://goo.gl/7MvkD9 ............................................ 10 Cicero, Marcus Tullis, SELECTED SPEECHES OF CICERO (Michael Grant ed. and trans., 1969) ......... 4 Florida Dep’t of Agric. & Consumer Servs., Division of Licensing, CONCEALED WEAPON OR FIREARM LICENSE SUMMARY REPORT (Oct. 1, 1987–FEB. 28, 2019), http://goo.gl/yFzIwv .............................. 10 Grotius, Hugo, THE RIGHTS OF WAR AND PEACE (A.C. Campbell trans., 1901) ................................... 4 Halbrook, Stephen P., THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED (Univ. of New Mexico Press 2013) .......................... 4 Hobbes, Thomas, LEVIATHAN (Richard Tuck ed., 1991) ......................................................................... 5 Kleck, Gary & Gertz, Marc, Carrying Guns for Protection: Results from the National Self-Defense Survey, 35 J. RESEARCH IN CRIME & DELINQUENCY 193 (1998) ............................................................... 10 Kopel, David B., Pretend “Gun-Free” School Zones: A Deadly Legal Fiction, 42 CONN. L. REV. 515 (2009) ...................................................................... 10 v Kopel, David, Gallant, Paul & Eisen, Joanne D., The Human Right of Self Defense, 22 BYU J. PUB. LAW 43, (2007-2008) ........................................ 5 Locke, John, SECOND TREATISE OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT (1690) ................................................ 5 Story, Joseph, 3 COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION § 1890 (1833) ................................... 4 Wilson, James, 2 COLLECTED WORKS OF JAMES WILSON 1142 (K. Hall M. Hall ed. 2007) ................. 3 Rules Sup. Ct. Rule 37.3(a) ................................................... 1 Sup. Ct. Rule 37.6 ........................................................ 1 Constitutional Provisions Ala. Const. of 1819, art. I, § 23 ................................... 4 Conn. Const. of 1818, art. I, § 17 ................................ 4 Ind. Const. of 1816, art. I, § 20 ................................... 4 Ky. Const. of 1792, art. XII, § 23 ................................ 4 Miss. Const. of 1817, art. I, § 23 ................................. 4 Mo. Const. of 1820, art. XIII, § 3 ................................ 4 Ohio Const. of 1802, art. VIII, § 20 ............................. 4 Pa. Const., Art. IX § 21 (1790) .................................... 3 Pa. Declaration of Rights § 13 (1776) ......................... 3 U.S. Const., Amend. I .................................................. 8 U.S. Const., Amend. II ...................................... passim Vt. Declaration of Rights § 15 ..................................... 3 1 INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE1 The Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence is the public interest law arm of the Claremont Institute, whose stated mission is to restore the principles of the American founding to their rightful and preeminent authority in our national life. This includes the prin- ciple at issue in this case that the preexisting fundamental right of armed self-defense is protected by the Second Amendment against state regulation not sup- ported by a compelling interest. The Center has pre- viously participated in a number of cases before this Court addressing the Second Amendment, including Peruta v. California, 137 S. Ct. 1995 (2017), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The State of New York bans law-abiding citizens (other than those engaged in certain specialized em- ployments not at issue here) from carrying handguns in public other than for the limited purpose of hunting and target practice, unless they can demonstrate to the discretionary satisfaction of a government licensing official that they have “proper cause”—i.e., “a spe- cial need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession”—for obtaining a concealed carry license. N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f); Kachalsky v. Cty. of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 86 (2d Cir. 2012). 1 Pursuant to Rule 37.3(a), all parties have consented to the filing of this brief. In accordance with Rule 37.6, counsel affirms that no counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in part and that no person or entity other than amicus made a monetary contribution to fund the preparation and submission of this brief. 2 This restriction prohibits most members of the public from exercising their pre-constitutional natural right to self-defense—a right codified by the Second Amendment and recognized by this Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The Second Circuit’s decision below, like those of several other Circuit Courts of Appeal, erroneously treated the fundamental right to keep and bear arms as though it were limited to self-defense in the home, merely because the statute struck down in Heller in- volved a ban on handguns in the home. It then held, again erroneously, that the carrying of handguns out- side the home was therefore subject only to intermediate scrutiny (and even then, applied a deferential form of intermediate scrutiny that is more akin to ra- tional basis review), and that New York’s complete ban on carrying of handguns in public was therefore permissible. But the reasoning

Load more