Ë

'fI'{Ë
IN 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 StephenP. Flalbrook

,I-RTJI"ANICI.I
- MICT{EL,I-LP
180EastOceanBlvd..Suite200
Long [3each,CA 90802
felephone: (562)216-4444
Counselfor Atnici Curiae
Law Officesof
StephenP. Flalbrook
10560Main Srreer,Suite404
Fairfax,Virginia 22030
Telephone: (703) 352-7276
Counselfor Amici Curiae
Ë

'I'[.IE
IN IJNITEDST'ATESCOI.IRTOF APPEAI-S

IìORTI-IENINl-H CIRCI.JIT

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

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

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 StephenP. Flalbrook

.I'RTJTANICH - MICT-IEL,LLP
180EastOceanBIvd..Suite200
[-ong[ìeach,CA 90802
felephone: (562)2 16-4444
Counselîor Amici Cttriae
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 RespectfullySubmitted,
NationalRifle Associationof America,
Inc.,California
Rifle & PistolAssociation
Amíci Curiae ,,

( -]'r_ i- ( i..'o.-.
ElyCóunselC. D. Michel

(,
,;
$

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAcE(Sl

IDENTITYOFTHEAMICICURIAE .......I

N a t i o n aRl i f l c A s s o c i a t i o n .......I

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 ...2

F ConsenttoFile .......3

ARGUMENT a
J

.|
I. Introduction. . J

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.... ...11

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 ....20
t. j
V. The Prohibition Here Violatesthe Right to
K e e pa n dB e a r A r m s .....28

CONCLUSION .....30

CERTIFICATB OF COMPLIANCE . . 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 ) .. ..... 5

Ándrews v- State,
5 0 T e n n .1 6 5 ,1 8 7( 1 8 7 1 ) . . .29

i \ Ilarron v. Mayor o/'Baltimore,

7 P e t . 2 4 3 , 8L . E d .6 7 2 ( 1 8 3 3 ) .. 6, t5

Ilell v. Maryland,
3 7 8 U . S .2 2 6 , 2 4 7 - 4 8& " n . 3 ( 1 9 6 a ) . . . . . 19

Chicago, B e Q R. Co. v. Chícago,

1 6 6U . S2. 2 6( 1 8 e 7 ) . . 13

De Jonge v. Oregon,
. s 3 , 3 6 4( t 9 3 7 )
2 9 9U . S 3 . . . t6

District o/'Columbia v. Heller,

(, , , 1 1 2 8S . C t.2 7 8 3 (2 0 0 8 ) 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 .....18

liresru; Rrfl" & Pistol Club v. Van de Kamp,

9 6 s F .zd 7 2 3 ,7 2 9 -3I (9 th Cir . 1992\ . . . . 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 ) ..... 30

¡:. ...i llickman v. Block,

i ' j 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) ......19

Mctlloy v. IIogan,
3 7 8t J . S .t , 5 ( t 9 6 4 \ . . t7

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

Miller v. Texas,
, 1 5 3t J . S5. 3 5 ,5 3 8( 1 8 9 4 )
: . . 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.'.31d 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 ) . . . . passim

, ,1 l?egentsof Universityof Cali/brnia v. Ilakke,

438U.S.265,397-98(1978) .....19

San Antonio IndependentSchoolDistríct v. Rodriguez,

4 l I U . S .t , t 7, 3 3 ( t 9 7 3 \ . . . I5

Silveira v. Locþter,
3 t 2 F . 3 d1 0 5 2( 2 0 0 3 ) t2, t5, t7

Silveira v. Loclqter,
328F.3ds67(2003)... ....r2

Silveira v. Lockyer,
'i
i' 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) passim

United Statesv. Emerson,

.270F.3d203(5'hCir.2001) ......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 ) ... 16
,ì ll/oocl v. Ostrander,
i'
8 7 9F .zd 5 8 3 , 5 9 1 (9 ,nC ir . lg89) . . 20

U. S. Const.Amend.II .. pas s un

tJ. S. Const.Amend.XIV ...- passtm

æ

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (CONT.)

PAGE(S)

OTHER AUTHORTTY(CONT.)

Âlarneda
CountyCode$ 9.12.120(b) . . . . 3, 2g,30

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 ) . . . . 7,g, lg

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 ) . . . ....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

StephenP. Halbrook,

i ,,) .-l':ä:ï;i,""::iå'.?ïil1ff:î^äi:;,?:::::::::;':f
Law &. Policy, No.2, 120 (Spring2007) 23.24

i 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 ) ..... lg

StephenP. Ilalbrook,
The Founders' SecondAmendment(2008),
c h a p t e r6s & . 7 , 9 - I l . .24

William Rawle.
A View of theconstitutionof the unitedStatesof America.
t z t - 2 2( I 8 2 s )

vi
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

under the laws of California, with headquartersin Fullerton. Among its other
8;

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 RespectfullySubmitted,
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

lnisdemeanor." It appearsto be undisputedthat the legislativernotive was to ban

€3'

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. 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
'"t'
L,'
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 expticitly-

guaranteedr'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 interest-

.)

balancingby 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 nineteenth-

century 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 constructionbe conceived
to give to congress
a powerto disannthe people.Sucha flagitiousattempt
couldonly be lnadeundersofftegeneralpretenseby 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

?:E
eg
by its proposalof the F'ourteenthAmendment and passageoÊcivil rights

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

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

" 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 thesestatementsrvaswidelyreportedand 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:

tolcl. ttt2tll0-2811.quoting
I4 stat.t76-177(1866).I-reileradded:
'fhe
understanding thattheSecondAmendmentgavefieedblackstheright to
keepandbeararmswasreflectedin congressional discussionof thebill, with
evenan opponentof it sayingthat the foundinggeneration"were for every
manbearinghis arrnsabouthim andkeepingthemin his house,his castle,for
: . i h i so w nd e fe n se co
." n g .Globe.3gthcong.,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 <lef'ense. shall be deetnedguilty of larcenyof the sarne."H. R. Rep.No. 37,4lst
C o n g . . 3 dS e s sp, .p .7 - 8( 1 8 7 1 ) .
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

Amendment right of "bearing anns f-ora lawful purpose"that "the people [must]
i- ')
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

R
eÈ'
Covernment."lT

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

White Heller does not discussMiller v. Texas( 1S94) further, the Court
r ì
'o Id. aL2Bl3n.23.

t' Id.. citingPresser

v. Illinois,l l6 U.S.252,265( 1886)andMiller v. Texas,l53 U.S.535.
5 3 8( 1 8 e 4 ) .
tBId.at28l3, quotingPresserv.Illinois,l
l6 U.S.252,264-65 (18S6).Hellerdistinguishes
"'Presser'sbrief discussionof the SecondAmendmentwith a laterportionof the opinion
rnakingthe seeminglyrelevant(to the SecondAmendment)point thattheplaintitTwasnot
a rnemberof thestatemilitia.. . . fT]hatlaterportiondealswith theFourteenth,4menclntenî;
it was theFottrteenthArnendment 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<rurprecedentto tJetermineits continuingauthority." United Statesv. Lancellotti,
7 6 1 F . 2 d 1 3 6 3 .1 3 6 6( 9 t hC i r . 1 9 8 5 ) .

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

:7 lìresno Rifle cites

CruilcshanÉas having "held" that the Second Amendment does not
t l 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 538-
39.'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."'

'fhis
965 F.2d at 730. 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

f'1
valuesor a complementary'sliding scale' of standing. . . ." valley Forge

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:

"[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
I 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 of libertyandjusticewhichlie 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
*

discussingliteratureon incorporation).
,l
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

central role in the preservationof basic liberties than that which was contemplated
l' ,t,\
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 ( July16,1866)$14.
Sess.3842,3850 . l4 Stat,173,176
(r866).

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 :
)

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
t j

2qSilveirav. Loclg,,er,
328 I.-.3d567,577(9'hCir. 2003)(Kleinfelcl,C.J.,joined by C.J.s
Kozinski,O'Scannlain, &'f.G. Nelson,dissentingfiorndenialof rehearingenbanc),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 SupremeCourtto 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,
( 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
,.- ì)
¿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

( 1689). The only other individualright it recognizedwas the right to petition. Id.
€s
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<rlieedom of press 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:

This may be consideredas the true palladium of libeny. . . . The right

l ) 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<rnstructing T'ruePalladiumof Liberty,"'3 Tennessee
Journalof Law & policv,No.
-ra
!)
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 States-

connecticut, 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

have arms was as fundamentalas free speech.

a
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 Countyturthersuggeststhatof 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

é3 cfemandedthat.the proposed U.S. Constitutionbe amendedto declare:"That the

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

States,who are peaceablecitizens,from keeping their own arms . . . ."

r ) 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

oppressionagainst"unarmed people,"justifying the colonists in "taking up arms . .

r ì

. 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.

') Delaware'sDeclarationof Rights did not mention speechor arms, and

a'
\ . -_ '
rccognized
rightsonly to Christians.Del. Dec.of Rights,Art. III (1776).

Ï 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 ) .

only two individualrights-

In sum,the EnglishBill of Rightsrecognized
'I'he
pctition and arms. 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.

-fhc
V. 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").

v; In light of the above, the Orclinance,by prohibiting mere possessionof a

r'i lirearm clnCounty property, infringes on the right to keep and beararïns,which is
,: . r 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

¡ l

.v. :

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 Respectfully Submitted,
NationalRifle Association of America,Inc.,
&È & CalifiorniaRifle & PistolAssociation
Amici Curiae

By CounselC. D. Michel

-
¡:-- ì\.

3l
&

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hercbycertiB/that I causedtwo copiesof the foregoingto be mailedlirst

class,postageprepaidon this 30,hday of September, 200g,t<l:

Donaldtl. J. Kilmer,Jr.
I-aw Officesof DonaldKilmer
l26l LincolnAvenue,SuiteI I I
San Jose,California95125-3030

G SayreWeaver,Esq.
RichardsWatson& Cershon
i ì 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
'¡r

- \¿''--'''
i '
- --
/

\./ I
I\ , {} .-,(
ì I .t.

-.
^: C. D. MTCHEL

)z