Amicus Curiae Briefs

LCAV has filed many amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs in firearm-related cases.

Where available, a document may be downloaded by clicking on the underlined title. To access documents that are not available online, please contact LCAV via e-mail at requestassistance@lcav.org or 415-433-2062. See our Firearms Laws & Policies page for more information.

Brief of Amici Curiae Legal Community Against Violence, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, and San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon, in Support of Appellees and Affirmance, Richards v. Prieto, No. 11-16255 (9th Cir., filed Sept. 30, 2011). This lawsuit also challenges California's policy of allowing local law enforcement discretion in issuing concealed handgun licenses.  Plaintiffs seek to undo state policy by claiming that discretionary licensing violates the Second Amendment, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that people have a right to possess a firearm only in the home for self-defense, not a right to possess a concealed handgun in public.  This amicus brief, filed in support of California's law, argues that because the law does not burden the Second Amendment, it is subject to, and clearly satisfies, rational basis review.  Alternatively, if the court finds that the law substantially burdens the Second Amendment, intermediate scrutiny is the proper basis for review, and the statute easily satisfies that test as well.

Brief of Amici Curiae Legal Community Against Violence, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, and San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon, in Support of Appellees and Affirmance, Peruta v. County of San Diego, No. 10-56971 (9th Cir., filed Aug. 19, 2011). This lawsuit challenges California's law allowing local law enforcement discretion in issuing concealed handgun licenses.  California requires that an applicant for a license demonstrate "good cause," a policy that plaintiffs – who were denied licenses by defendant county sheriff – claim violates the Second Amendment.  The District Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, and while the court did not rule on the Second Amendment’s application outside the home, it ruled that defendant's policy would pass constitutional muster.  This amicus brief, filed in support of the county sheriff and in favor of California's discretionary licensing law, argues, inter alia, that California's concealed carry law does not burden the Second Amendment right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense, the only right that has been articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Brief of Amicus Curiae Legal Community Against Violence in Support of Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Woollard v. Sheridan, No. 1:10-cv-02068-JFM (D. MD, filed March 22, 2011). This lawsuit challenges part of Maryland law requiring a permit for the carrying of a handgun in public. Under state law, concealed carry permit applicants must show, among other things, that they have a "good and substantial reason" to carry a handgun, and law enforcement must find "that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger." Plaintiffs claim that this discretionary provision violates the Second Amendment. This amicus brief, filed in support of Maryland’s current law and in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, argues that substantive First Amendment jurisprudence and the doctrine of prior restraint have no place in Second Amendment law.

Brief of Amici Curiae Legal Community Against Violence, California Peace Officers’ Association, California Police Chiefs’ Association, California State Sheriffs’ Association, City of Oakland, City and County of San Francisco, Violence Policy Center, and Youth ALIVE! in Support of Defendants-Appellees Addressing Standard of Scrutiny and Urging Affirmance, Nordyke v. King, No. 07-15763 (9th Cir., filed Aug. 18, 2010). This action was brought by gun show promoters to challenge on Second Amendment and other grounds an Alameda County ordinance prohibiting the possession of firearms and ammunition on county-owned property. Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010) (holding that the Amendment applies against state and local governments), the Ninth Circuit panel requested additional briefing addressing the impact of the McDonald decision on this litigation. This amicus brief, filed in support of Alameda County, proposes a rubric for evaluating Second Amendment claims derived from the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment cases and other areas of constitutional law. Where a law directly or significantly burdens the Second Amendment right to possess a firearm in the home for self defense, the brief argues, a court should apply the “intermediate scrutiny” standard of review. The brief concludes that the Alameda County ordinance does not significantly burden the exercise of the Second Amendment, but that even if it did, the ordinance would satisfy intermediate scrutiny.

Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Appellee City of Cleveland, City of Cleveland v. Ohio, No. 2009-2280 (Ohio, submitted June 30, 2010). In 2006, Ohio adopted a concealed firearms licensing system. The legislation included a statement, arguably a substantive provision, purporting to preempt local ordinances that regulate or prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms. The City of Cleveland sued the state, alleging that the provision runs afoul of the Home Rule Amendment to the Ohio Constitution, which expressly grants to municipalities the authority to adopt and enforce police regulations that do not conflict with the general law of Ohio. In 2009, the Court of Appeals of Ohio held that the trial court erred in denying Cleveland’s motion for summary judgment. Ohio has appealed that ruling. LCAV, joined by several Ohio cities, the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, and other national gun violence prevention groups, filed this amicus brief with the Ohio Supreme Court in support of Cleveland.

Brief for the Board of Education of the City of Chicago, Institute of Medicine of Chicago, Wayman African Methodist Episcopal Church of Chicago, Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, Legal Community Against Violence, Violence Policy Center, States United to Prevent Gun Violence, Freedom States Alliance, Connecticut Against Gun Violence, Maine Citizens Against Gun Violence, Citizens for a Safer Minnesota, Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, Educational Fund, and Gunfreekids.org in Support of Respondents City of Chicago and Village of Oak Park, McDonald v. Chicago, No. 08-1521 (U.S. Supreme Court, submitted Jan. 6, 2010).McDonald v. Chicago concerns whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies to state and local governments. Plaintiffs challenged municipal ordinances in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois that ban the possession of handguns, claiming the ordinances violate an individual right to bear arms under the Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), the Supreme Court held that there is an individual right under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms unconnected to service in a militia, but that decision applies only to the federal government. Both the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected the challenges, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to states or localities. The Seventh Circuit determined that it was bound by a series of Supreme Court cases that uniformly held that the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government. Plaintiffs are petitioning the Supreme Court for a ruling that the Second Amendment is incorporated under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to state and local governments. LCAV, joined by numerous local activist organizations and national gun violence prevention groups, filed this amicus brief in support of Chicago and Oak Park. On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 ruling that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments in addition to the federal government. In doing so, the Court reversed the Seventh Circuit decision that affirmed the dismissal of Second Amendment challenges to the handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park. For further information, see LCAV's McDonald v. Chicago Resources.

Amici Curiae Brief of Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Legal Community Against Violence, Massachusetts Chiefs of Police, Massachusetts Million Mom March Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and Stop Handgun Violence in Support of Appellee, Massachusetts v. Depina, S.J.C. No. 10558 (Mass., filed Oct. 19, 2009). 
Massachusetts v. Depina considered challenges to Massachusetts statutes that require persons who possess a firearm to: 1) obtain a firearm identification card to possess certain types of firearms (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 129B, 129C); and 2) obtain a state license in order to carry a handgun in public (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 131).  The challenger – convicted of violating these statutes – claimed the laws violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution based on the U.S. Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).  Heller recognized the value of licensing and safety requirements similar to those in Massachusetts, such as the reasonable limits on gun possession imposed by the challenged laws. LCAV joined the Brady Center and other law enforcement and gun violence prevention groups in filing this amicus brief in support of Massachusetts. On March 10, 2010, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states to nullify the statutes under which defendant was convicted, and affirmed the convictions.

Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief and Brief for Amici Curiae Legal Community Against Violence, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and Violence Policy Center in Support of Petitioners, Adames v. Beretta, No. 09-253 (U.S. Supreme Court, submitted September 28, 2009). Adames v Beretta concerned the constitutionality of the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901 - 7903, which immunizes the firearms industry from most lawsuits. Adames arose out of the unintentional shooting death of a young teen shot and killed by a friend. Administrators of the deceased child’s estate sued the gun’s manufacturer on a strict products liability theory to recover for the child’s death. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the PLCAA was constitutional and that it barred plaintiffs’ claims. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and the Violence Policy Center joined LCAV in filing this amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a petition for certiorari, arguing that the PLCAA unconstitutionally infringes on states’ rights under the Tenth Amendment because it wipes out traditional state product-defect claims – state-created rights – replacing them with nothing. The Supreme Court denied the petition on December 14, 2009.

Amici Curiae Brief of Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Legal Community Against Violence, Massachusetts Chiefs of Police, Massachusetts Million Mom March Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and Stop Handgun Violence in Support of Appellant, Massachusetts v. Runyan, S.J.C. No. 10480 (Mass., filed June 29, 2009). Massachusetts v. Runyan considered a challenge to Massachusetts’ safe storage law, Massachusetts General Laws ch. 140, § 131L, which requires that a firearm be securely stored when not carried by or under the control of an owner or lawfully authorized user.  Runyan involved an appeal of a lower court ruling citing the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in the dismissal of an indictment against a parent who failed to secure a semiautomatic rifle from his teenage son.  Runyan marks the first time an appellate court heard a challenge to a safe storage law following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008). Heller specifically noted that it does not call into question “laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents,” such as the Massachusetts’ law. LCAV joined the Brady Center and other law enforcement and gun violence prevention organizations in filing this amicus brief in support of Massachusetts to ensure the Supreme Judicial Court upholds the safe storage statute. On March 10, 2010, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the safe storage law was not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, and reversed the lower court decision.

Brief of Amici Curiae Chicago Board of Education, Institute of Medicine of Chicago, Wayman African Methodist Episcopal Church of Chicago, Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, Legal Community Against Violence, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence/Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, Violence Policy Center, States United to Prevent Gun Violence, and Freedom States Alliance in Support of Defendants-Appellees Urging Affirmance of Judgment, NRA v. Chicago & Oak Park, Nos. 08-4241, 08-4243 & 08-4244 (7th Cir., filed April 28, 2009). In NRA v. Chicago & Oak Park, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the Second Amendment does not apply to state or local governments.  In so doing, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of complaints filed by the National Rifle Association and Second Amendment Foundation alleging that the Illinois municipalities’ prohibitions on the possession of handguns violated the Second Amendment.  The Seventh Circuit determined that it was bound by a series of U.S. Supreme Court cases that uniformly held that the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government.  The court emphasized that Supreme Court decisions may only be overruled by the Supreme Court itself.  LCAV, joined by several local activist organizations and national gun violence prevention groups, filed this amicus brief in support of Chicago and Oak Park.

Brief for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, and Legal Community Against Violence as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellee and Affirmance, White v. U.S., No. 08-16010-DD (11th Cir., filed April 1, 2009). On June 4, 2008, Defendant-Appellant White was convicted of the federal crime of possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).  On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its historic ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), where the Court found that the Second Amendment guarantees that individuals have a right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense purposes unrelated to service in a well-regulated militia.  Based on this ruling, Defendant-Appellant challenged his conviction, arguing that the Second Amendment prohibits Congress from criminalizing the possession of firearms by convicted domestic violence misdemeanants. On January 11, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the federal district court's ruling upholding the defendant's conviction and finding that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) is a presumptively lawful prohibition on the possession of firearms.

LCAV joined the Brady Center and the National Network to End Domestic Violence in filing this amicus brief in the Eleventh Circuit in support of the United States, arguing that the federal statute prohibiting persons convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from possessing firearms does not affect the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves in the home and does not run afoul of the Second Amendment.

Brief and Appendix of Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiff and Appellant City of Cleveland, City of Cleveland v. Ohio, No. CV-09-092663, (Ohio Ct. App., submitted Mar. 24, 2009). In 2006, Ohio adopted a statute that created the state’s concealed firearms licensing system. This legislation included a statement, arguably a substantive provision, purporting to preempt local ordinances that regulate or prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms. The City of Cleveland filed suit against the state, alleging that the provision runs afoul of the Home Rule Amendment to the Ohio Constitution, which expressly grants to municipalities the authority to adopt and enforce police regulations that do not “conflict” with the general law of Ohio. The city seeks a declaratory judgment finding that this provision contravenes the Home Rule Amendment because it precludes the local regulation of firearms in the absence of a conflicting general law. LCAV, joined by several Ohio cities, the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, and other national gun violence prevention groups, filed this amicus brief in support of Cleveland.

Brief of Amici Curiae Legal Community Against Violence, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and Ceasefire NJ, Ass’n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. City of Jersey City, No. 63385 (N.J., filed Mar. 24, 2009). Various gun dealers and rifle and pistol clubs filed suit against the City of Jersey City to invalidate an ordinance that limited handgun purchases to one per person per month. A New Jersey Superior Court struck down the ordinance on the grounds that state law preempted the field of firearm regulation and the ordinance conflicted with state law governing permits to purchase handguns. Defendants appealed to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court, which affirmed the lower court ruling on September 29, 2008. This amicus brief was filed in the New Jersey Supreme Court in support of Jersey City’s authority to regulate the sale of firearms and in support of the general authority municipalities in New Jersey have been granted by the state to regulate the sale and use of firearms in the interest of public safety. While the appeal was pending, New Jersey adopted a statute limiting handgun purchases to one per person per month. Thus, the supreme court vacated the Appellate Division opinion and dismissed the appeal as moot. Ass'n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. City of Jersey City, 992 A.2d 1 (N.J. 2010).

Brief of Amicus Curiae Legal Community Against Violence in Support of Petition for Certification, Ass'n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. City of Jersey City, No. 63385 (N.J., filed Jan. 8, 2009). Various gun dealers and rifle and pistol clubs filed suit against the City of Jersey City to invalidate an ordinance that limited handgun purchases to one per month. A New Jersey Superior Court struck down the ordinance on the grounds that state law preempted the field of firearm regulation and the ordinance conflicted with state law governing permits to purchase handguns. Defendants appealed to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court, which affirmed the lower court ruling on September 29, 2008. This amicus brief was filed in the New Jersey Supreme Court in support of Jersey City’s authority to regulate the sale of firearms and in support of the general authority New Jersey municipalities have been granted to regulate the sale and use of firearms in the interest of public safety. The brief was filed to encourage the New Jersey Supreme Court to hear the case.

Supplemental Brief of Amici Curiae Legal Community Against Violence, et al. in Support of Defendants-Appellees Urging Affirmance of the Judgment, Nordyke v. King, No. 07-15763 (9th Cir., filed Oct. 2, 2008). This action was brought by gun show promoters to challenge an Alameda County ordinance prohibiting the possession of firearms and ammunition on county-owned property. Plaintiff-Appellant Nordyke appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, claiming that the ordinance prevents him from operating profitable gun shows on county fairgrounds, and challenging the ordinance on the ground that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants to him a right to possess and sell guns on county property, following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) (holding that the Second Amendment provides a right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense). This brief was filed in support of Alameda County and its authority to adopt the ordinance, since the ordinance is not subject to the Second Amendment because, under the ruling in Heller, the Amendment does not apply to state and local regulation.

Brief of Amici Curiae Legal Community Against Violence, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and Violence Policy Center in Support of Plaintiffs, Adames v. Sheahan, Nos. 105789 and 105851 (consolidated) (Ill., filed June 27, 2008). A child was unintentionally shot and killed by a friend who was playing with the service weapon of his father, a deputy sheriff. Plaintiffs, administrators of the estate of the deceased child, sued defendant firearm manufacturer on a strict products liability theory to recover for the child’s death. Plaintiffs appealed a judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, which granted defendants' motions for summary judgment. Reversing a grant of summary judgment to the manufacturer, the court found, inter alia, that the manufacturer was not entitled to summary judgment on a failure to warn claim as there was no warning that a gun could fire a chambered bullet when the magazine was removed. Defendants raised the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901 - 7903, which immunizes firearms manufacturers from most lawsuits, as a defense, but the court found that the PLCAA did not require dismissal of failure to warn claim against the gun manufacturer. LCAV joined the Brady Center, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and the Violence Policy Center in filing this amicus brief in the Illinois Supreme Court in support of plaintiffs, arguing that the PLCAA does not bar plaintiffs’ action, and that the PLCAA is unconstitutional.

Brief Amicus Curiae of Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major Cities Chiefs, National Sheriffs’ Association, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, Police Executive Research Forum, National Black Police Association, National Latino Peace Officers Association, Legal Community Against Violence, and School Safety Advocacy Council Supporting Petitioners, U.S. v. Hayes, No. 07-608 (U.S. Supreme Court, submitted June 16, 2008). Defendant challenged his conviction for possessing firearms after having been convicted of the predicate offense of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(9), 924(a)(2). Defendant claimed that his predicate offense was not a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A). In United States v. Hayes, 172 L. Ed. 2d 816 (2009), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed whether the definition required that the predicate offense underlying an 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) conviction have as an element a domestic relationship between the offender and the victim. The state offense under which defendant was convicted was simple battery under a statute that had no specified domestic relationship element. (The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had held that such an element was essential to the existence of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to bar defendant’s gun possession, and reversed the conviction. United States v. Hayes, 482 F.3d 749 (4th Cir. 2007).) On February 24, 2009, the Supreme Court held that federal law prohibiting gun possession by persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence applies regardless of whether the underlying crime requires proof of a domestic relationship. U.S. v. Hayes, 172 L. Ed. 2d 816, 825, 828 (2009). The government may charge and prove that a prior conviction was, in fact, for an offense committed against a spouse or other domestic victim. LCAV joined the Brady Center and other major law enforcement organizations in filing this amicus brief in the Supreme Court to have the Fourth Circuit decision overturned. If allowed to stand, the Fourth Circuit’s decision would have allowed thousands of dangerous, convicted domestic violence offenders to lawfully purchase and possess firearms again.

Amicus Letter of Legal Community Against Violence in Support of the City and County of San Francisco’s Petition for Review, Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco, No. S160968 (Cal., Filed Mar. 20, 2008). The National Rifle Association and others filed a petition for writ of mandate and/or prohibition in the California Court of Appeal to challenge a San Francisco City and County ordinance prohibiting the sale, distribution, transfer and manufacture of all firearms and ammunition in San Francisco and banning possession of handguns by San Francisco residents. On January 9, 2008, a California Court of Appeal struck down the ordinance, finding it preempted by state law. San Francisco has appealed this decision to the California Supreme Court. This amicus letter was filed in the California Supreme Court in support of San Francisco.

Brief of Amicus Curiae Legal Community Against Violence in Support of Defendants-Appellees Urging Affirmance of the Judgment, Nordyke v. King, No. 07-15763 (9th Cir., filed Jan. 15, 2008). (Amended Disclosure Statement) This action was brought by gun show promoters to challenge an Alameda County ordinance prohibiting the possession of firearms and ammunition on county-owned property. Plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit an order of the district court granting the County's motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' as-applied challenge under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. LCAV filed this amicus brief in support of Alameda County.

Brief of Amici Curiae Major American Cities, the United States Conference of Mayors, and Legal Community Against Violence in Support of Petitioners, District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290 (U.S. Supreme Court, submitted Jan. 11, 2008). District of Columbia residents brought a challenge under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to District laws that: 1) prohibit the possession of most handguns in the District; and 2) require that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. The District of Columbia District Court dismissed these challenges on the grounds that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms for service in the Militia, and that the term “Militia” in the Amendment refers to an organized military body, such as a National Guard unit. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, striking down the District’s laws as violative of the Second Amendment and interpreting the Amendment to protect an individual right to keep and bear firearms unrelated to service in the militia. Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Baltimore, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York City, Oakland, Philadelphia, Sacramento, San Francisco, Seattle, and Trenton joined LCAV and the U.S. Conference of Mayors in this amicus brief filed in support of the District of Columbia. On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held that there is an individual right under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms unconnected to service in a militia, but the decision applies only to the federal government. District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008). For further information, see LCAV's District of Columbia v. Heller Resources.

Brief of Legal Community Against Violence As Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants/Appellees Urging Reversal of the Judgment, Ileto v. Glock, Inc. (Nos. 06-56872, 07-15403, & 07-15404) (9th Cir., Submitted Oct. 3, 2007). Family members of victims of the 1999 North Valley Jewish Community Center shooting, in Granada Hills, California, filed suit against the firearms manufacturers, dealers, and distributors of the firearms used in the shootings, claiming negligence and creation of a public nuisance by the gun industry. The defendants successfully moved to dismiss the action in the District Court on the basis of the 2005 federal immunity law. Plaintiffs have appealed that ruling. This amicus brief was filed in support of the plaintiffs' appeal, arguing that the case falls within the immunity law's exception for actions alleging knowing violations of a statute "applicable to the sale or marketing" of firearms, and that the law is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers doctrine and constitutes a "taking" of a protected property interest in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Brief of Amicus Curiae Legal Community Against Violence, Ass'n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. City of Jersey City, Nos. A-004443-06T2 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div., Submitted Aug. 24, 2007). Various gun dealers and rifle and pistol clubs filed suit against the City of Jersey City to invalidate an ordinance that limited handgun purchases to one per month. A New Jersey Superior Court had struck down the ordinance on the grounds that state law preempted the field of firearm regulation, and the ordinance conflicted with state law. Defendants appealed to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. This amicus brief was filed in support of Jersey City’s authority to regulate the sale of firearms.

Brief of Amicus Curiae Legal Community Against Violence in Support of Appellants, Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco, No. A115018 (Cal. Ct. App., 2007). The National Rifle Association and others filed a petition for writ of mandate and/or prohibition in the San Francisco County Superior Court after the California Court of Appeal denied a similar petition (see below). Both petitions challenge a San Francisco City and County ordinance prohibiting the sale, distribution, transfer and manufacture of all firearms and ammunition in San Francisco and banning possession of handguns by San Francisco residents. The Superior Court invalidated the ordinance on preemption grounds. On May 29, 2007, LCAV applied for permission to file an amicus brief in support of the City and County of San Francisco. The Court of Appeal denied LCAV’s application for permission to file the amicus brief.

Amici Curiae Brief of Legal Community Against Violence, Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, and the Violence Policy Center Supporting Cross-Appellant City of New York and Urging Reversal on the District Court's Constitutional Ruling, City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., No. 05-6942-cv (2d Cir., submitted July 17, 2006). This action was brought by the City of New York against members of the gun industry for sales and distribution practices that feed the illegal gun market. After Congress enacted the federal gun industry immunity law, defendants moved to dismiss the case. In City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 401 F. Supp. 2d 244 (E.D.N.Y. 2005), the district court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the suit was permitted because the city alleged knowing violations of law within one of the law’s exceptions. The court also upheld the law’s constitutionality. Defendants appealed to the Second Circuit and the City of New York cross-appealed on the constitutional issues. This amicus brief was filed in support of the city’s constitutional challenge.

Amicus Brief of Legal Community Against Violence in Support of Respondents' Opposition to Writ of Mandate, Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco, No. CPF-05-505960 (Super. Ct., submitted January 25, 2006). The National Rifle Association and others filed a petition for writ of mandate and/or prohibition in the San Francisco County Superior Court after the California Court of Appeal denied a similar petition (see below). Both petitions challenge a San Francisco City and County ordinance prohibiting the sale, distribution, transfer and manufacture of all firearms and ammunition in San Francisco and banning possession of handguns by San Francisco residents.

Amicus Brief of Legal Community Against Violence in Support of Respondents, Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco, No. A111928 (Cal. Ct. App., submitted December 7, 2005). The National Rifle Association and others filed a petition for writ of mandate and/or prohibition in the California Court of Appeal to challenge a San Francisco City and County ordinance prohibiting the sale, distribution, transfer and manufacture of all firearms and ammunition in San Francisco and banning possession of handguns by San Francisco residents. This amicus brief was submitted to the California Court of Appeal, which declined petitioners’ request to exercise original jurisdiction and denied the petition. Accordingly, the petition to file this amicus brief was denied as moot.

Brief Amicus Curiae of American Jewish Congress, City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 821 N.E.2d 1099 (Ill. 2004) (Nos. 95253, 95243, 95256, 95280)
This action (a parallel lawsuit to Young v. Bryco Arms, discussed below) was brought against numerous gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers, alleging that they created a public nuisance through their sales and marketing practices. This brief was submitted to the Illinois Supreme Court which denied leave to file this brief and other amicus briefs submitted in this case. The court ultimately dismissed the case for failure to state a claim.

Merit Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Appellants, Klein v. Leis, 795 N.E. 2d 633 (Ohio 2003) (No. 02-585)
This action challenged an Ohio statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms. This brief was submitted to the Ohio Supreme Court in support of the constitutionality of the statute. The court ultimately upheld the statute.

Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Appellants’ Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction, Klein v. Leis, 795 N.E. 2d 633 (Ohio 2003) (No. 02-585)
This action challenged an Ohio statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms. This brief was submitted to the Ohio Supreme Court in support of the constitutionality of the statute and to persuade the court to grant the appeal. The court ultimately upheld the statute.

Brief of Amici Curiae the City and County of San Francisco, et al., in Support of Respondents Mary V. King, et al., Nordyke v. King, 44 P.3d 133 (Cal. 2002) (No. S091549)
This action was brought by gun show promoters to challenge an Alameda County ordinance prohibiting the possession of firearms and ammunition on county-owned property. This amicus brief was filed in the California Supreme Court after the court granted the request of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to determine whether the ordinance was preempted by state law. The California Supreme Court found that the ordinance was not preempted.

Brief of Amici Curiae the City and County of San Francisco, et al., in Support of Petitioner the County of Los Angeles, Great Western Gun Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 44 P.3d 120 (Cal. 2002) (No. S091547)
This action was brought by a gun show promoter to challenge a Los Angeles County ordinance prohibiting the sale of firearms and ammunition on county-owned property. This brief was filed with the California Supreme Court after the court granted the request of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to decide whether the ordinance was preempted by state law. The California Supreme Court found that the ordinance was not preempted. The federal claims were ultimately settled with the county’s sales ban ordinance remaining intact.

Brief Amicus Curiae of American Jewish Congress, Young v. Bryco Arms, 821 N.E.2d 1078 (Ill. 2004) (Nos. 93678, 93685, 93728)
This action (a parallel lawsuit to City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.) was brought against numerous gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers, alleging that they created a public nuisance through their sales and marketing practices. This brief was submitted to the Illinois Supreme Court which denied leave to file this brief and other amicus briefs submitted in this case. The court ultimately dismissed the case for failure to state a claim.

Brief Amicus Curiae of American Jewish Congress, City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 785 N.E.2d 16 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002) (No. 1-00-3541) rev'd, 821 N.E.2d 1099 (Ill. 2004)
This action (a parallel lawsuit to Young v. Bryco Arms) was brought against numerous gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers, alleging that they created a public nuisance through their sales and marketing practices. This brief was filed in the Illinois Appellate Court. Subsequently, the Illinois Supreme Court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim.

Amicus Brief on Behalf of City and County of San Francisco, in Support of Defendants and Appellees and in Support of Affirmance of District Court’s Order Denying Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, Nordyke v. King, 229 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2000) (No. 99-17551)
This action was brought by gun show promoters to challenge an Alameda County ordinance prohibiting the possession of firearms and ammunition on county-owned property. This brief was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. After certifying the question of preemption to the California Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims and, following the California Supreme Court’s finding that the ordinance was not preempted by state law, rejected plaintiffs’ preemption claim.

Opposition of Amici City and County of San Francisco, et al. to Motion to Strike, Nordyke v. King, 229 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir 2000) (No. 99-17551)
This action was brought by gun show promoters to challenge an Alameda County ordinance prohibiting the possession of firearms and ammunition on county-owned property. This brief was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. After certifying the question of preemption to the California Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims and, following the California Supreme Court’s finding that the ordinance was not preempted by state law, rejected plaintiffs’ preemption claim.

Amicus Brief on Behalf of City and County of San Francisco, in Support of Defendant and Appellant County of Los Angeles and in Support of Reversal of District Court’s Order Granting Preliminary Injunction, Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 42 Fed. Appx. 929; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 16278 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2002) (No. 99-56605) (Unpublished opinion)
This action was brought by a gun show promoter to challenge a Los Angeles County ordinance prohibiting the sale of firearms and ammunition on county-owned property. This brief was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court certified the question of preemption to the California Supreme Court, which found that the ordinance was not preempted. The federal claims were ultimately settled with the county’s sales ban ordinance remaining intact.

Brief Amicus Curiae of Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, in Support of Respondent City of West Hollywood, Cal. Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. City of W. Hollywood, 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 591 (1998) (No. B108910)
This action challenged on preemption grounds a West Hollywood ordinance prohibiting the sale of "junk guns" (also known as "Saturday Night Specials"). The brief was filed in support of West Hollywood with the California Court of Appeal, which ultimately upheld the ordinance.

Brief of Amici Curiae City and County of San Francisco, in Support of Respondent City of West Hollywood, Cal. Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. City of W. Hollywood, 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 591 (1998) (No. B108910)
This action challenged on preemption grounds a West Hollywood ordinance prohibiting the sale of "junk guns" (also known as "Saturday Night Specials"). LCAV was responsible for securing the participation of the signatories – all local communities. The brief was filed with the California Court of Appeal, which ultimately upheld the ordinance.