So, they got theirs up just under the wire. The Brady Campaign brief is pretty much exactly what I expected.
The whole thing is about "reasonable regulation" and "public interest." Without weighing in on incorporation, they simply beg for a standard of review that's as close to rational basis as they can get without calling it such.
They dig pretty deep (
Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc.?) to prove that strict scrutiny doesn't usually apply across the board for civil liberties, and they seem to encourage such a situation.
If anything, the Left needs to tread very carefully when praising infringements on 1st and 4th Amendment rights.
Their usual arrogance comes through on page 5:
Gun policy is best determined as it always has been in this country: in the political arena, without courts second-guessing reasoned legislative judgments.
I guess they didn't read this week's 7th Circuit opinion, because they rest part of their case on this:
Our society’s broad acceptance of firearms regulations is confirmed by the fact that while over forty states have constitutions with right-to-keep-and-bear-arms provisions, not one reviews such restrictions under heightened scrutiny. p. 22
Oh, and Arthur Kellerman is used as a source. Twice.
The NAACP brief argues against revisiting the Privileges or Immunities clause at all, claiming,
The Court should turn to the largely unexplored Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment only if it first determines that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not incorporated as against the states through the Due Process Clause. p. 2
They repeatedly claim that there's nothing wrong with selective incorporation, and that it should be kept, as it has not "suddenly proven unworkable." Sure, no problem. Selective incorporation can work,
it just takes a hundred years or so sometimes.
Regarding Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank,
While it is undeniable that these cases are part of a dreadful chapter in the history of this nation, they present no bar to incorporation of constitutional rights as against the states under the Due Process Clause. p. 13
I can't help but get the feeling they're being more than just a bit glib about post-Reconstruction harassment and lynching, something that's confirmed a few pages later:
It would be ironic, to say the least, if this Court decides to reexamine the Privileges or Immunities Clause in this case—which involves firearms regulations in a city where, each year, many times more African Americans are murdered by assailants wielding guns than were killed during the Colfax massacre by white insurgents who escaped federal prosecution in Cruikshank. pp. 5-6
They argue that the Court, "should not decide Constitutional questions unnecessary to the resolution of this case," which is a bit disingenuous, since revisiting Priviliges or Immunities is necessary to the resolution at hand.
If this was 1968 or so, do you really think the NAACP would be so content to forestall a rehearing of the 14th Amendment?