NRA’s Amicus Curiae Brief Summary in District of Columbia v. Heller

The National Rifle Association (NRA) submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of Dick Heller’s case against the District of Columbia’s handgun ban. The NRA argued that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, independent of service in a militia. Their brief focused on three main points:

1. Textual History: The NRA emphasized the plain meaning of the Second Amendment, highlighting the words “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” They argued that historical context, including English common law and the founding era’s understanding of individual firearm ownership, supported this interpretation.
2. Individual vs. Collective Right: The NRA challenged the view that the Second Amendment only protects the right to bear arms in a militia context. They argued that the amendment’s wording and the inclusion of “the people” indicated an individual right, essential for self-defense within the home.
3. Scope of the Right: While acknowledging reasonable regulations, the NRA argued against an absolute ban on handguns. They emphasized the historical prevalence of handguns for self-defense and the limitations such a ban placed on the Second Amendment right.

Answering the Questions

1. Does the NRA want the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm or overrule the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s opinion?

The NRA wants the Supreme Court to overrule the D.C. Circuit’s opinion. The Circuit Court upheld the handgun ban, which the NRA views as a violation of the Second Amendment’s individual right to bear arms.

2. Why?

The NRA seeks to establish a legal precedent recognizing the Second Amendment as protecting an individual’s right to possess firearms, particularly handguns, for lawful purposes like self-defense within the home. The D.C. Circuit’s decision, if upheld, would restrict this right significantly.