Opinio Juris

The firearms death rate in the United States far surpasses that of other democratic nations. A 1997 study analyzing firearms deaths for children aged 14 or under in 26 industrialized countries found that 86 percent of all deaths occurred in the United States. The rate for firearms homicide alone was 16 times higher in the United States, while the firearms suicide rate was 11 times higher and the firearms unintentional death rate was nine times higher.

In 1995, the firearms death rate in the United States was 13.7 per 100,000. In comparison, the firearms death rates in countries that severely limit access to handguns were significantly lower. For example, in 1995, Canada had a firearms death rate of 3.9 per 100,000; Australia had a rate of 2.9 per 100,000; and England and Wales had rates of 0.4 per 100,000. One of the most glaring distinctions between these countries and the United States is the significantly lower incidents of lethal violence caused by handguns.

Criminological research has established that the high rate of handgun homicides in the United *7 States is due, at least in part, to the high rate of handgun ownership in the United States. The rate of handgun ownership and the rate of handgun homicides in the United States, when compared to the same data from other countries, illustrate the strong correlation between the availability of handguns and the incidence of handgun homicides.... [T]he United States experiences about four times the level of handgun homicides per 100,000 people than Israel, Sweden, Canada, Australia, and Great Britain combined.

The use of handguns in suicide in no way proves that an alternative method would not be used if handguns were unavailable. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. Japan, Hungary, and Scandinavia all have far more restrictive gun control than the United States, and yet they have suicide rates 2 to 3 times higher than the U.S. For example, the suicide rate in Hungary is 35.38 per 100,000, compared to only 12.06 per 100,000 in the United States.

The AAP Brief relies on a country-by-country comparison in arguing that the firearm related death rate in the United States was much higher in 1995 in the United States than in Canada, Australia, and England and Wales, all of which have restrictive gun control. AAP Brief at 25. But the data for gun deaths in the United States include guns used in self-defense, as in fending off an assault, robbery or rape, and higher homicide rates in the United States existed long before there was gun control in other countries….

Different societies have different confounding factors, such as crime-inducing drug addiction, single-parent families, promotion of violence in the media, and varying approaches to juvenile delinquency and schooling, all of which inevitably affect crime rates. Those confounding factors are best eliminated by looking at the effect of gun control on the same society, and as shown below, gun control typically results in an increase in overall crime rather than a reduction. Gun control is hardly supported if murders by switchblades increase as death by firearms declines.

The evidence from foreign jurisdictions leads to the same conclusion as the United States data. In general, comparison of “homicide and suicide mortality data for thirty-six nations (including the United States) for the period 1990-1995” to gunstock levels shows “no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership and the total homicide rate.” Additionally, in a 2001 European study of 21 nations' data, “no significant correlations [of gunstock levels] with total suicide or homicide rates were found.”…

A 2007 study compared gun ownership and murder in every European nation on which the data could be found. Again, nations with more guns did not exhibit higher murder rates. Indeed, the tendency is generally the opposite: murder rates for the seven nations having 16,000+ guns average out to 1.2 per 100,000 population while the murder rates for the nine nations having just 5,000 or fewer guns is well over three times higher, at 4.4 per 100,000. These national comparisons suggest that the determinants of murder are factors such as basic socio-economic and cultural factors, and not the mere availability of guns. Leading gun control advocates have admitted that “Israel and Switzerland [have] rates of homicide [that] are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those noted in the U.S.” To the same effect, within Canada, “England, America and Switzerland, [the areas] with the highest rates of gun ownership are in fact those with the lowest rates of violence.”

Throughout history, the disarmament of populations has all too frequently resulted in genocide and mass oppression. History is replete with this familiar pattern. To limit the right to keep and bear arms to a state regulated militia is to disregard what the Framers understood - that individual possession of arms is essential to preventing usurpation by the state.

During the 20th Century, more than 70 million people were slaughtered on a massive scale by their own governments after first being disarmed. This pattern repeated itself in Ottoman Turkey (1915-17), the Soviet Union (1929-45), Nazi Germany and Occupied Europe (1933-1945), Nationalist China (1927-1949), Communist China (1949-52, 1957-60, and 1966-70), Guatemala (1960-81), Uganda (1971-79), Cambodia (1975-79) and Rwanda (1994)just to name a few.

In many cases, firearm confiscation followed only after the groundwork was laid by purportedly “reasonable” regulation and registration of firearms. History illustrates just how readily the standardless “reasonable” regulation of firearms invites large scale abuse by the state and ultimately paves the way for wholesale confiscation of arms and the mass slaughter of the disarmed (much like the massive censorship that likely would arise under a rule permitting “reasonable” regulation of speech and press).

While the Founding Fathers may not have anticipated genocide, they certainly did anticipate tyranny and added the Second Amendment to safeguard against it. James Madison observed “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation” and noted how this was an important check and balance on the power of government…. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story considered the Second Amendment to be the most important individual right of all: The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

These Nineteenth and Twentieth Century examples illustrate how well the Framers of the Constitution understood the essential role an armed citizenry plays in the defense of a free people. They had before them a rich history of European despotism from which to draw the keen understanding that armed people are free people and thus were unmistakably aware of the essential nexus between firearms ownership and liberty….

The great fortune of the American people is that our Constitution was crafted in such a manner as to minimize the likelihood of needing our arms to oppose a tyranny arising from within. Yet, the Second Amendment was created as the final barricade against the unthinkable - the day when the rest of our Constitutional safeguards have failed us and we stand exposed to the brutal reality that so many in history have understood only too late.

In the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Petitioners represent that other nations have reached the same conclusion concerning handguns as they have. “[M]ost industrialized countries strictly control civilian access to handguns and allow the carrying of handguns for personal protection only under very restrictive conditions …” Petitioners repeat this assertion in their merits brief where they state: “Many cities, states, and nations regulate or ban handguns based on the unique dangers of those deadly weapons.” Contrary to this assertion, most foreign gun laws in democratic nations are not nearly as restrictive as those found in Washington D.C., where private individuals are burdened by an outright ban of all functional firearms in their homes.

Some of the earliest works on the subject of International Law were by fourteenth century Milanese scholar Giovanni da Legnano, whose work, De Bello, De Represealiis et de Duello was one of the first attempts to establish international rules for warfare. Legnano's treatise closely examined the individual right of self-defense as the basis of establishing a derivative right of a nation to engage in war. Legnano believed that, “self-defense proceeds from natural law, and not from positive law, civil or canon.” Self-defense was not an artificial construct of positive law, but instead was an inherent instinct. Legnano did not confine the natural right to merely protecting one's life. He explained that self-defense was proper not only in defense of life, but also in defense of one's property, and that deadly force to protect that property was justified if necessary. Further, the principle of self-defense allows a person to come to the aid of a relative or friend whose person or property is being attacked. Finally, Legnano noted that a victim is not required to use only the exact level of force that his assailant uses by posing the rhetorical affirmation: “suppose a strong and vigorous man strikes me with his fist, and I am a poor fellow who cannot stand up to him with the fist. May I defend myself with a sword?”

Following in the footsteps of Legnano was the sixteenth century Spanish scholar, Francisco de Victoria. Victoria wrote several works on the subject of the “just war” and his classroom at the University of Salamanca became known as “the cradle of international law.” Like Legnano, Victoria believed that the justification for war was necessarily predicated upon adopting the individual right of self-defense as its derivative source. Thus, Victoria's first proposition articulated the individual right of self-defense: Any one, even a private person, can accept and wage a defensive war. This is shown by the fact that force may be repelled by force. Hence, any one can make this kind of war, without authority from any one else, for the defense not only of his person, but also of his property and goods. The foundation established by Legnano and Victoria created the platform for the father of International Law, Dutch scholar, Hugo Grotius. His work, The Rights of War and Peace, is considered the cornerstone of modern International Law and Grotius is hailed as “the founder of modern civilized interstate relations.”

The essential elements of Grotius' works were founded upon the precepts of self-defense and self-preservation. Grotius wrote that even human babies, like animals, have an instinct to defend themselves. Further, this instinct extended to the protection of property rights and was one of the fundamental elements of the social fabric of modern society, because if people were barred from using force to protect their property from those who would take it by force, then “human Society and Commerce would necessarily be dissolved.”

Grotius based his rules for war between nations predicated on the underlying individual natural right of self-defense and observed that the rationale for both were based upon the same moral principle: “[I]t is allowed to Repel Force by Force.” It is upon the foundation of the fundamental individual right of self-defense that the structure of International Law is built.

Second only to Hugo Grotius was 17th century scholar Samuel Pufendorf, whose eight volume masterpiece, Of the Law of Nature and Nations, incorporated theories of Grotius, and the philosophies Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Pufendorf; like Grotius, used natural law theory to construct the law of nations. The primary natural law employed by Pufendorf was that of self-defense: “Defence is a thing of more ancient date than any Civil Command…” and that no state can therefore forbid self-defense.

The natural right to self-defense which forms the very core of the principles of International Law, has one final component which protects the means by ‘which the right can be exercised. Thomas Hobbes explained “it is in vain for a man to have a right to the End, if the right to the necessary means be denied him, it follows, that since every Man hath a right to preserve himself, he must also be allowed a right to use all the means, and do all the actions, without which he cannot preserve himself.”