Your honor, (My name is Ting and )I am here today representing the city of Saint Louis,

the Defendant in this case.

As we all know, my client, Saint Louis, is considered to be the second most dangerous

city in the United States, and there are mass shootings in this city. Due to the shooting

that happened at Stoneman Douglas(/ˈdʌɡləs/) High School in Parkland, Florida, with

17 people dead and 17 others injured (/'ɪndʒɚd/), the City of Saint Louis passed an

ordinance banning certain types of guns, especially the “assault weapons.” The plaintiff,

Annie Oakley, is an avid (/ˈævɪd/) gun collector. She owns numerous guns, including

an AR-15, a kind of assault weapon. So, Oakley filed a lawsuit against the City of Saint

Louis for violating her Second Amendment rights. However, the defendant, the City

Saint Louis maintains that the City Ordinance is constitutional.

To my first point, Saint Louis ordinance does not violate the Second Amendment rights

of Saint Louis citizens, as it does not prevent Saint Louis citizens from keeping and

bearing arms for self-defense.

There is no doubt that both the Second Amendment and the Missouri Constitution

protect individual right to keep and bear guns for self-defense in the home. In the

case of District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller 554 U.S., 128 S.Ct.2783(2008)

(referred to as “Heller 1”), the Supreme Court held that citizens have the right to

keep and bear arms for self-defense purpose. However, none of these laws refers

that the assault weapons are protected.

In fact, the City Ordinance does not deprive the right of citizens to possess arms for

self-defense. What the City Ordinance prohibits is keeping the assault weapons. It

means that although citizens have no right to have assault weapons, they still have

the right to keep other kinds of guns to protect themselves.

In addition, although the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear

guns for self-defense in the home, the right is not unlimited. In the case of Heller 1,

the Supreme Court explained that the right protected by the Second Amendment is

not a gun possession right in any manner and for any purpose, and the right should

not be unlimited. We just hear from the Plaintiff that the City Ordinance violates

citizens’ rights under the Second Amendment, which is absolutely wrong. Firstly,

Saint Louis government just bans assault weapons, not all kinds of guns. Assault

weapons are dangerous and unusual, so citizens do not necessarily use assault

weapons for self-defense at home. Besides, the right of citizens to keep and bear

arms for self-defense has not been deprived because citizens can still have handguns

to defend themselves. There is no legal basis to say that citizens have the right to

choose guns randomly.

Moreover, according to the case of City of Cape Girardeau v. William Joyce 884

S.W.2d 33(1994) (referred as “Cape Girardeau”), the court held that the Cape

Girardeau Legislature has the right to enact laws to regulate the way people carry

arms. We can draw a conclusion that local government in Missouri also has an

authority to regulate the kinds of arms people can possess. As assault weapons are

dangerous and can cause mass shootings of innocent people, they are not beneficial
for the government to protect the public safety and control crimes. Therefore, Saint

Louis Government can enact laws to prohibit citizens from having assault weapons.

In conclusion, the City Ordinance does not deprive citizens’ rights to possess guns

for self-defense, and assault weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment.

As a result, the City Ordinance does not violate the Second Amendment rights and

Missouri Constitution.

My second argument is that intermediate scrutiny standard is the appropriate

standard to prove the constitutionality of the city ordinance. In the case of Dick

Anthony Heller v. United States of Appeals, the court held that the court should

decide the level of scrutiny depending on how severely the ban burdens citizens’

rights, it means that if the government severely burdens citizens’ rights, the strict

scrutiny standard should be applied. In addition, in the case of Stephen V. Kolbe v.

United States Court of Appeals 849 F.3d 114(2017) (referred to as “Kolbe”), the

court held that level of scrutiny depends on the nature of the regulated conduct and

the level of burdens to rights. Do you think the city ordinance causes serious burdens

to citizens’ rights? Obviously, the answer is no. because citizens still have freedom

to choose other kinds of guns to protect themselves, like handguns, non-automatic

and some semi-automatic guns. So, without severe burdens to citizens’ rights, the

intermediate scrutiny is the most appropriate standard.

And my last point is that the city ordinance meets the intermediate scrutiny standard.

In Saint Louis, the second most dangerous city in America, governmental goals to

protect public safety and control crimes is not only important, but also compelling.
And the City Ordinance banning assault weapons strongly fits our governmental

interests of controlling crime and protecting public safety, because assault weapons

having military features are very dangerous and cause mass shootings. As a result,

the City Ordinance survives the intermediate scrutiny standard, and the City

Ordinance does not violate the Second Amendment.

In conclusion, the City Ordinance just bans certain kinds of guns, so that citizens

have freedom to choose other kinds of guns for self-defense. In addition, the right

protected by the Second Amendment is not unlimited, and the Saint Louis

government has power to enact laws to stipulate the ways people carry guns and the

kinds of guns people can possess. As a result, the City Ordinance does not infringe

the right of citizens under the Second Amendment. Last but not least, the City

Ordinance survives the intermediate scrutiny standard, so it is constitutional.

For these reasons, the defendant respectfully requests the Court to grant Summary

Judgment in favor of the defendant.