Today, as promised, the American Hunters and Shooters Association (ASHA) filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in the landmark Second Amendment case, Heller v. The District of Columbia. ASHA believes the case, which found the Second Amendment is an individual right, should be affirmed, but on a non-Constitutional basis.
I'm not a lawyer but we worked with some of the best legal minds in the country on our brief, and I mean lawyers who really know how the Supreme Court operates. I can tell you that Supreme Court briefs filed by the two parties in this case – and most of the other amicus briefs -- take the very traditional and mutually exclusive (of course) interpretations of the Second Amendment: an individual's right to bear arms vs. the so-called "collective right" to have a citizen militia. All the briefs can be found at the Scotusblog (we’re listed as "Major General John D. Altenburg, et al.")
Instead of playing this game and picking one of these sides, we have taken what I think is a unique approach in arguing that the language of the Second Amendment does not support pitting individual rights against group rights. We argue that just like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is a blend of both individual rights and community rights, with each depending on the other. And, we think it's pretty obvious that "a well-regulated militia" actually depends on individual recruits who have familiarity and training with firearms. The brief we submitted today, which was written by some of DC's most experienced Supreme Court lawyers, argues that the individual right to bear arms is essential to the collective public interest in a "well regulated militia," and that the DC Gun Law is not authorized under the DC Home Rule Act – which according to our lawyers gives the Supreme Court a non-Constitutional basis to affirm the decision of the lower court that found an individual right to keep and bear arms.
We think our distinctive approach, focusing on the DC Home Rule Act, protects the gun rights of hunters and shooters, while maintaining the rights of communities to enact laws to protect its citizens. That’s critical to us as we know that community safety is very important to a majority of hunters.
I am very proud that 11 senior and former military leaders have joined AHSA’s amicus brief. Their voices lend credence to our argument that rigorous training with firearms is a strong predictor of success in basic training and in the military. Any way you look at the gun issue, lawful and regulated practice with appropriate firearms is a critical component of our national defense. Based on decades of military experience, our partners in the brief have concluded that the District of Columbia’s Gun Law directly interferes with the Congressionally mandated Civilian Marksmanship Program, which prepares citizens for more effective service in the military.
All of this is to say that we at AHSA, unlike the NRA, take a responsible approach to firearms policy. We believe that firearm rights do not reside within a vacuum and must be balanced with firearm civic responsibilities. That component has been missing from the pro-gun side, but it’s critical. Hunters and shooters understand and welcome their civic responsibilities. The Second Amendment does not prevent thoughtful public policies. In fact, we think good public policy is good for gun owners and ensures that all Americans can enjoy the benefits of this crucial and historic liberty. But, the NRA leadership won’t ever accept that premise because they can’t raise money from it. That’s one key difference between us. We actually put hunters, shooters and national defense first.
One last, but very important point, that distinguishes AHSA from the leaders of the NRA: our argument would not prevent the D.C. Council from enacting rationally-based regulations relating to possession, safety, and registration of firearms in the District. In fact, we firmly believe the District of Columbia has a responsibility to the public to do so.