Excerpts From Friend-of-Court Briefs

• Liberal former officials of the U.S. Justice Department, including former Attorney General Janet Reno (.pdf):
"Amici disagree with the current position of the United States Department of Justice that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for purposes unrelated to a State's operation of a well-regulated militia. That position, which was adopted in the fall of 2001, reversed the Department's longstanding position that the Second Amendment is not implicated by firearms regulations that are designed to protect public safety and do not interfere with participation in a well-regulated militia.

"Recognition of an expansive individual right to keep and bear arms for private purposes will make it more difficult for the government to defend present and future firearms laws. With gun violence continuing to plague the United States, this Court should adhere to the position it staked out nearly 70 years ago in Miller and construe the Second Amendment to protect a right to keep and bear arms only to the extent the exercise of such a right is related to the 'preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.' "

• Selected members of Congress (.pdf):
"Since Miller it has been well settled that the Second Amendment is implicated only when the desired possession or use of a weapon has a 'relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.' If the Second Amendment has any specific applications in Twenty-First Century America, it may be most appropriate for judgments about those applications to reside with the political branches, and particularly with Congress, which is expressly vested with responsibilities over the militia by Article I.16."

• UC-Irvine (incoming) Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and UCLA Law Prof. Adam Winkler (.pdf):
"Should this Court hold that the Second Amendment protects an individual right apart from service in the militia, this Court should follow the consistent, longstanding federal and state constitutional practice and hold that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation. Reasonableness review is appropriate because most weapons regulations are unquestionably legitimate means of enhancing public safety, reducing crime, or protecting children. Where the vast majority of regulation in an area is legitimate, this Court has held that the predicate for heightened scrutiny is absent and the judiciary should presume the constitutionality of legislation. Moreover, the text of the Second Amendment, the history of the right to bear arms in federal and state constitutional law, and federalism values all support permitting legislators substantial latitude to adopt reasonable regulations of arms.

"Any Second Amendment standard more demanding than reasonableness review is likely to burden the states with a flood of litigation challenging prior state criminal convictions for weapons offenses and severely limit the ability of local authorities to shape public safety laws to fit local circumstances."

• City of Chicago (.pdf):
"Chicago, like other big cities, has a compelling interest in reducing crime related to firearms. The amici consider it imperative that the democratic process be uninhibited by federal constitutional constraints that were never intended to apply against state and local governments, and that the States be free to regulate firearms as they deem appropriate to the particular conditions in their communities.