Avalanche of Anti-gun Amicus Briefs Hits Supreme Court

One brief, submitted by a group of anti-gun-rights governors calling themselves the “Governors Safer Communities Initiative”—including California Governor Gavin Newsom, Colorado Governor Jared Polis, Delaware Governor Matt Meyer, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, Maryland Governor Wes Moore, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, Rhode Island Governor Daniel McKee, Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger, and Washington Governor Bob Ferguson—declared, “Given its priorities, the Initiative’s members have a significant interest in the defense of common-sense measures that regulate possession of certain dangerous weapons. Although the laws of amicus members’ jurisdictions differ in substance, we are aligned in our firm conviction that states retain broad authority under their police power to enact measures like these—tailored to their own residents’ needs and consistent with our Nation’s historical tradition. The officials who enact them, moreover, are best positioned to judge what their communities need.”

The brief submitted by attorneys general representing several states, including Massachusetts, New Jersey, Arizona, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington asserts, “…assault weapons are disproportionately dangerous compared to their civilian self-defense uses. Assault weapons like the AR-15 were designed to kill armored enemy combatants in offensive battlefield situations. They are rarely used in real-world self defense situations. But they are used with increasing frequency in the deadliest mass shootings across the Nation. State and local laws restricting assault weapons like the AR-15 thus comport fully with the principles underlying our Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.”

One brief in particular, from David A. Robinson, counsel of record in North Haven, Conn., goes to the extreme of suggesting part of the Second Amendment—the so-called “prefatory clause” addressing the necessity of a well-regulated militia—is extinct. He further asserts, “the operative clause (“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”) is extinct unless the right is inherent. The right to self-defense is inherent, so the Second Amendment gives civilians the right to keep and bear arms necessary for self-defense.”

Robinson acknowledges in his opening remarks, “My interest in this case stems from my effort in 2023 24 to start a movement to amend the Second Amendment for modern times and modern safety needs…. I tried to start a movement to persuade the American people to amend the Constitution to clarify the Second Amendment for modern times, but I failed because the people cannot agree on the language of an amendment clarifying the Second.”

The consolidated cases of Viramontes v. Cook County (Illinois) and Grant v. Higgins (Connecticut), are scheduled for oral argument on Wednesday, Dec. 2 before the Supreme Court. Both cases were spearheaded by the Second Amendment Foundation, with various partners in each case.

There is no small irony in the fact that SAF is headquartered in Washington state, whose officials are involved in at least three of the opposing briefs, underscoring the seriousness of the long-standing belief that SAF is “operating behind enemy lines.”