In the case of the New York Rifle & Pistol Association vs Breun in which the Supreme Court decides whether the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms in public for self-defense purposes, the court received an amicus brief submitted by several signatories.

Among the applicants, the name of former fourth district judge J. Michael Luttig certainly stands out the most.

Judge Luttig was allegedly shortlisted for president of the Supreme Court during the George W. Bush administration.

In substance, the submission does not provide sufficiently substantiated and clear reasons to oppose the right to carry arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment, either of a historical or political nature.

The right to carry arms is a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment and as such should be the rule until exceptions are explicitly excluded.

Yet New York criminalizes open arms carrying, and only a few who manage to prove they have a proper cause get licenses for unconcealed weapons.

Failed attempt to make the case

The shortcomings of the brief are also visible in the part where, through examples from history, an attempt is made to argue the restriction of the rights guaranteed by the second amendment.

In the brief, the applicants refer to a total of six colonial and early state laws which support its thesis that at the time of its establishment the right to carry arms was not extended to carry in public.

Thus, for example, the applicants refer to the alleged North Carolina Act of 1792 which prescribes that no one may go or ride armed to markets, fairs, or anywhere else, whether at night or during the day.

The same law mentions that the same is not allowed even in the presence of the so-called Kings Justices.

North Carolina never had a king nor was it a monarchy, which means that such a law is non-existent and has never been in force.

The other 5 statutes relied on by the applicants did exist, but it does not follow that the then legislatures forbade the carrying of weapons in public.

What emerges from historical sources is that the carrying of unusual or dangerous weapons or the carrying of weapons in a manner intended to provoke terror is prohibited.

The only law that remains as an argument in favor of the allegations in the submission is the East New Jersey Act of 1686 which forbade the carrying of pocket pistols by stipulating that no planter may go or ride armed with a pistol, sword, or dagger.

So the part of the submission that has justification for restricting the rights guaranteed by the second amendment has only one law that was in force in one city.

Founding fathers carried weapons

Furthermore, the petition fails to refute the plethora of evidence adduced in favor of the plaintiffs from which it is evident that the Americans at the time of the establishment fully understood and defended the right to bear arms and in public.

As follows from the brief submitted to the court by the Second Amendment Foundation, the first 6 American presidents were not only advocates but also carried weapons in public.

The brief also does not refer to the historical data presented in the submission of the Independent Institute which establishes that at the time of its establishment there were restrictions on the carrying of firearms only in courts and legislative bodies.

When analyzes of Luttig’s brief refutes the claims about the historical justification of the restriction of the right to carry a weapon, it remains only to analyze and determine the justification of the political arguments for a negative attitude towards the carrying of weapons.

The incursion of protesters into the Capitol on January 6 this year, for example, stands out.

The applicants explain that such incidents would be more deadly and frequent if the right to bear arms was recognized.

This argument refutes and excludes itself, given D.C. is a right-to-carry jurisdiction.

The brief does not discuss literature data from which it follows that on the basis of existing knowledge it cannot be claimed that respect for the right to bear arms in public leads to an increase in crime and violence.

Due to all the above, it is clear that Luttig’s submission is not based on historically proven facts, and that political arguments are very easily refuted.

To sum up, it can be concluded that the merits of the brief do not derive from the content, but derived but only from the name of its main signatory.