OK. The actual brief was only 61 pages. The rest of the brief was an appendix: District Court Opinion and Judgment.
So what was in the 61 relevant pages? Pretty much what we should expect.
The first 18 pages entails on how Judge Myerscough erred in her opinion and judgment. The rest is devoted to the historical evidence that carry, in whatever form, is part and parcel of the core right to self defense.
3. The District Court’s Decision
The District Court began its analysis of the merits by opining that “neither the United States Supreme Court nor any United States Court of Appeals has recognized” a right to carry handguns in public for self-defense. SA 14. It then opined that District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) is limited to its facts of having a gun at home. SA 16.
Curiously, the District Court then cited this Court’s holding that “the Second Amendment creates individual rights, one of which is keeping operable handguns at home for self-defense. What other entitlements the Second Amendment creates . . . were left open.” SA 17 (quoting United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc)) (emphasis added). The District Court asserted that McDonald applied against state actors “the right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense.” SA 17.
The District Court then offered that this Court’s opinion in Ezell “did not make a finding regarding the scope of the Second Amendment outside of the home.” SA 19. And Ezell’s citation to Skoien’s observation that “one of” the Second Amendment’s rights is the right to having arms at home was said by the lower court to “support the conclusion that the Second Amendment right, as recognized by the Supreme Court, does not extend outside of the home.” Id. The District Court confirmed its conclusion with citation to a number of opinions that similarly limited the Second Amendment. SA 19-22.
The District Court found that assuming that the Second Amendment secures rights outside the home, such rights would warrant no more than intermediate scrutiny. SA 38. The District Court then balanced any public Second Amendment right out of existence by finding that completely prohibiting the carrying of guns for self-defense is substantially related to the government’s asserted public safety interest. SA 42. Denial of Plaintiffs’ motion, and the granting of Defendants’ motion, followed directly from this determination of the constitutional merits.
The above is an accurate, if somewhat simplistic, stating of the actions of the court below. Since the appeal is on the nature of the MTD and the denial of the injunction, the 7th circuits review of Myerscough's decision will be De Novo.
That means that the 7th circuit panel will review all the facts of the case as if for the first time. And those facts (the historical record) are laid out in much detail. In one brief, David Sigale has laid out almost the entire record that was originally in many of the amici
If you want to brush up on your history of applicable judicial cites, this brief is an excellent study. David Sigale is excellent when it comes to this sort of thing.
I have to mention that it is becoming harder to distinguish the writings of David Sigale and David Jensen from that of Alan Gura. Sigale appears to be the researcher, while Jensen is the firebrand. They are both being tempered by the wordsmithing abilities of their associate, Alan Gura. I may be wrong in my assumptions, here, but after reading all of their pleadings, we are experiencing another Gura first - Team-Building.
This is a distinct, "Good Thing."