The value I do see therein is raising the “unintended consequences” concern: a prohibition built on one cause may have wide-ranging impacts on other legitimate/legal/rights issues far beyond what the authors had in mind. This returns us to the point of this country’s existence: to guarantee and protect freedom and liberty, to assure a style of government which only infringes on rights in the narrowest & most compelling cases, leaving citizens to do as they see fit without meddling by ignorant busybodies.

Discussion in this thread presents another version of the point: comments about “short barreled shotguns are useless for X so they can/should be prohibited” fail to observe that some of us DO see legitimate applications for those tools, both in activity X and in otherwise unconsidered activities Y and Z. (Yes, I own one – legally.) You may not see the point in using one for hunting, but you are not the end-all expert on use thereof and do not have the superiority needed to legitimize a sweeping ban of them.

Also, beware of the “not in common use” argument. Prohibiting an item or activity, then declaring it “not in common use”, is illegitimate reasoning. Short barreled shotguns, and machineguns, would be rather common (being trivially different from their legal counterparts mechanically speaking) if not for their pointless prohibition.

This particular one would, IMHO, have been more effective if it had drained from the text some of the unnecessary asides about the fears of “overzealous” or “arbitrary” rules. When doing an Amicus brief like this, the general rule is to present new and interesting facts in a neutral manner, so the Court trusts your factual presentation. I suspect that in this one the tone of stridency came through a bit too much and that the Court will therefore discount it.

By the way, sawed off shotguns are illegal and not used for hunting (they are not that efficient for the task). Precluding bans on firearms may make them legal again. Is that a good thing?

I don’t think short barrel shotguns will meet Heller’s ‘in common use’ test.

If, despite that, they were legalized, I doubt it would make much difference. Someone who wants a short barreled shotgun for nefarious purposes can just saw one off in a few minutes of work using $10 worth of tools. There may be some deterrent effect, although people contemplating mayhem with a shotgun are probably not the type to carefully consider future consequences of current behavior, and (I’d guess) are frequently likely to have prior convictions that prohibit possession of long barreled shotguns as well.

I would also note that a pistol gripped shotgun is legal today and short enough to conceal under a coat if one is so inclined.

I’m not saying the fate of the republic rests on legalizing short barrel shotguns, but that if they were legal, they would be misused only slightly more commonly than at present, perhaps offset by occasional responsible use by some Harry Homeowner using one for self defense. Overall, I expect that if you could conduct the experiment in parallel worlds, you couldn’t distinguish the two worlds from the resulting crime data.

I believe that the amicus brief, while well-written and containing good information is simply irrelevant to the issue at hand.I fail to see how it would influence the justices one way or the other.

Generally agree, as most every brief I’ve read so far seems anchored on the privileges or immunities clause and its included right of self-defense. But if certain natural rights are within the protections of the 9th amendment or the 14th amendment’s P & I clause, would hunting be among them? Or put another way I suppose, does the Framers’ impetus to enact the 14th amendment exclude hunting, if hunting can be considered a natural right? If hunting is closely tied to subsistence, as it may have been even in some cases in 1868, would that not move hunting closer to the kind of rights included within the 9th & 14th amendments? Now that I think of that, I remember my mom telling me her family lived off the jack rabbits (yuk) they shot in Oklahoma in the Dust Bowl era. Right to life – hunting with a firearm sustains life – does that not get you close to either amendment?

I just don’t see what the facts you present have to do with a constitutional right to own firearms. And make no mistake, this is not just about handguns (although the case at bar is).

Most people know that lots of people have handguns and that that hunting is a tool of conservation.

I did learn that handguns are used for hunting from the brief.

I believe that the amicus brief, while well-written and containing good information is simply irrelevant to the issue at hand. I fail to see how it would influence the justices one way or the other.

I further believe that DK’s point is not well-taken. Banning handguns nationwide (something I am not suggesting be done) will have a minimal impact on hunting and conservation. Those who want to hunt will choose another weapon. It may however, reduce the enjoyment of some people who currently hunt with handguns.

I certainly do not believe that automatic weapons are essential for hunting. However, semi-automatic weapons are likely useful.

By the way, sawed off shotguns are illegal and not used for hunting (they are not that efficient for the task). Precluding bans on firearms may make them legal again. Is that a good thing?

Some of those facts are:
lots of people hunt with handguns (you can watch it on espn2)
guns used for hunting are the same as guns used by the military
hunting is a tool of conservation and management and the environment would be worse without it – deer breed themselves into starvation die-offs without hunting, fowl either clog waterways or invite dangerous poaching when their hunting is illegal, etc.

The amicus brief does not purport to argue the second amendment – the main case will be doing that and the amicus brief states that.

Allan: Protecting wildlife within a state (as opposed to federally owned land) is also not a constitutional concern. It is, and almost always has been, a state regulated activity.

1. Ever heard of the Endangered Species Act? There are lots of federal regulations concerning hunting, particularly of migratory animals that must move across state lines to survive.
2. Every time a person purchases a firearm or ammunition (and bows and arrows and rods and reels) he or she pays a federal excise tax of 10 or 11 percent. Those dollars go to the Pittman-Robertson fund, which is one of the major sources of wildlife funding across the fifty states. (The other is hunting licenses and fees.)

Educating Justices about the hunting applications also counters the “handguns are only good for killing people” canard.

Of course, the rejoinder might be that some justice might be influenced by it even if it isn’t their bailiwick.

The Constitution empowers the President to “call up the militia” (to wit: the people at large, self-armed) – a power easily neutralized under such reasoning by simply forbidding anyone in a given jurisdiction from possessing arms, and propagating that prohibition thru all jurisdictions collectively.

By Chicago’s reasoning, the Civil War could have been avoided simply by the South forbidding arms possession by anyone.

The club argues that hunting is important. Perhaps it is. But hunting is not an activity protected by the Constitution.

Protecting wildlife within a state (as opposed to federally owned land) is also not a constitutional concern. It is, and almost always has been, a state regulated activity. And it is regulated. One cannot hunt in the off-season.

If state legislatures wanted to make hunting illegal, they could. So why can’t they allow hunting with anything but firearms?

As I said, the club’s position is inherently illogical and really does not address a constitutional concern in this case, as hunting with handguns most certainly is not allowed in Chicago.

Ugh: If you live in Chicago you can’t own a handgun period, or is it just that you cannot possess one in Chicago?

You just cannot possess a handgun within Chicago city limits. Chicago residents with an Illinois FOID (Firearm Owner Identification) can purchase and possess handguns in the rest of the state.

Many do so and store them outside of Chicago.

[DK: If you had read the brief, you would have learned that hunting is lawful within the boundaries of Chicago.]