• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

Glockster30 said:
No, Rob is right. Four vote to take the case, which they haven't done in several other 2nd Amendment cases because they didn't think that they had the 5 votes when Kennedy was on board or the case wasn't good enough for them to use strict scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Right but they must think they have 5 votes or they wouldn't take it.

This is great news, no?
 
T-Unit said:
What's the difference between non strict scrutiny and strict scrutiny? How strict? Shall not be infringed strict?
Click to expand...

IANAL.

There's three levels of constitutional review: strict scrutiny, intermediate, and rational basis.

If strict scrutiny applies, then the government has to prove that it had a compelling interest to regulate something and that the statute/regulation was narrowly tailored to further that interest. Let's use the Mass LTC system as an example. Mass could argue that it has a compelling interest to regulate gun ownership via licensing to prevent shootings, theft, etc. and that licensing is the least burdensome way to do that. You know that's wrong, I know that's wrong, we all know that's wrong, but it's what they would argue. If the court doesn't buy the argument and the other side can make a good counterargument (like say, look at NH/VT/Maine where ownership is not equated to licensing at all [RI requires a safety card for handguns]), then the regulation is unconstitutional. Strict scrutiny typically applies when there's a historic trend of discrimination against the group in question, like racial minorities, religious groups, and basic gun ownership.

Intermediate scrutiny is less refined of a test and applies when the group challenging the law does not have a longstanding history of constitutional protection, like the LGBT community. The plaintiff now has the burden of proving the regulation unconstitutional. In gun context, this could be laws about concealed carry. Concealed carry implicates self-defense, but is subject to government regulation via licensing or some statute (I think only VT has true constitutional carry and has never enacted a statute one way or the other). Don't quote me if concealed carry is subject to intermediate scrutiny.

Rational basis means that the government can have any rational basis to enact a regulation and that regulation is ok. Let's use the machine gun registry as an example. The plaintiff has to prove that the government has no rational (aka reasonable) basis for enacting the machine gun registry. If the government has evidence that the registry prevents crime and is effective and there are no other good alternatives, then the government's case is solid. Obviously, this is a hard hill to climb for most plaintiffs unless there is clear evidence of government malice, ineptitude, etc.

Again, I am not a lawyer. Google and YouTube are your friends.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
C. Stockwell said:
IANAL.

There's three levels of constitutional review: strict scrutiny, intermediate, and rational basis.

If strict scrutiny applies, then the government has to prove that it had a compelling interest to regulate something and that the statute/regulation was narrowly tailored to further that interest. Let's use the Mass LTC system as an example. Mass could argue that it has a compelling interest to regulate gun ownership via licensing to prevent shootings, theft, etc. and that licensing is the least burdensome way to do that. You know that's wrong, I know that's wrong, we all know that's wrong, but it's what they would argue. If the court doesn't buy the argument and the other side can make a good counterargument (like say, look at NH/VT/Maine where ownership is not equated to licensing at all [RI requires a safety card for handguns]), then the regulation is unconstitutional. Strict scrutiny typically applies when there's a historic trend of discrimination against the group in question, like racial minorities, religious groups, and basic gun ownership.

Intermediate scrutiny is less refined of a test and applies when the group challenging the law does not have a longstanding history of constitutional protection, like the LGBT community. The plaintiff now has the burden of proving the regulation unconstitutional. In gun context, this could be laws about concealed carry. Concealed carry implicates self-defense, but is subject to government regulation via licensing or some statute (I think only VT has true constitutional carry and has never enacted a statute one way or the other). Don't quote me if concealed carry is subject to intermediate scrutiny.

Rational basis means that the government can have any rational basis to enact a regulation and that regulation is ok. Let's use the machine gun registry as an example. The plaintiff has to prove that the government has no rational (aka reasonable) basis for enacting the machine gun registry. If the government has evidence that the registry prevents crime and is effective and there are no other good alternatives, then the government's case is solid. Obviously, this is a hard hill to climb for most plaintiffs unless there is clear evidence of government malice, ineptitude, etc.

Again, I am not a lawyer. Google and YouTube are your friends.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty good description. I'll just add a few relevant points. The government usually gets a pass on the first heightened scrutiny test - compelling government interest. Some people do bad things with guns, spoiling it for everyone, and the government has a compelling interest in public safety. That's never really in dispute.

However, in order to prevail under heightened scrutiny, the government must also demonstrate that the challenged law or regulation is likely to be effective and is also the least restrictive means of serving that compelling government interest. This is where the wheels come off the bus in Second Amendment cases. While the courts have typically been claiming to apply heightened scrutiny, they've in fact be applying rational basis. Without evidence or skepticism, the courts have accepted the government's view that AWBs, carry bans, etc. are effective and are the the least restrictive means of ensuring public safety.

Heller left the scrutiny question open by declaring that DC's handgun ban didn't even pass rational basis muster. While I don't think this case will break the dam open on the carry outside the home question, I do think that the court will use it as a vehicle to tightened down the standard that lower court use in Second Amendment cases. If that's the case, it also means that a lot of cases in the pipeline will have to be re-framed or new cases will have to be developed to fit whatever outcome we get here. The justices are very well aware of the Second Amendment cases in the lower court pipeline and they picked this one. That doesn't mean they won't pick Rogers, or Gould, or Young when the time is right. It just means that they're picking very carefully.
 
MaverickNH said:
Get ready for scores on Amicus briefs from both sides - often educational and sometimes amusing.
Click to expand...

I forgot about that, expect at least 10 or more from various gun grabbing state AG's
for all the good it will do them (I suspect that any amicus briefs filed will have little
or no impact on the courts decision).
 
M60 said:
If they do try to ignore the ruling, which in fact, becomes an upholding of the law, it would be a awfully easy way to get their pee pee slapped legally.
Click to expand...

Is there a real punishment though? A fine or a disciplinary action of some sort. If not it why should it be any different than the 10 FLRB cases they are currently ignoring or the way some states ignor FOPA?

Here they fight us with an unlimited supply of our dollars and ignore they court order when they lose.

One would hope that they would listen to the Supreme Court.

Bob
 
C. Stockwell said:
IANAL.

There's three levels of constitutional review: strict scrutiny, intermediate, and rational basis.

If strict scrutiny applies, then the government has to prove that it had a compelling interest to regulate something and that the statute/regulation was narrowly tailored to further that interest. Let's use the Mass LTC system as an example. Mass could argue that it has a compelling interest to regulate gun ownership via licensing to prevent shootings, theft, etc. and that licensing is the least burdensome way to do that. You know that's wrong, I know that's wrong, we all know that's wrong, but it's what they would argue. If the court doesn't buy the argument and the other side can make a good counterargument (like say, look at NH/VT/Maine where ownership is not equated to licensing at all [RI requires a safety card for handguns]), then the regulation is unconstitutional. Strict scrutiny typically applies when there's a historic trend of discrimination against the group in question, like racial minorities, religious groups, and basic gun ownership.

Intermediate scrutiny is less refined of a test and applies when the group challenging the law does not have a longstanding history of constitutional protection, like the LGBT community. The plaintiff now has the burden of proving the regulation unconstitutional. In gun context, this could be laws about concealed carry. Concealed carry implicates self-defense, but is subject to government regulation via licensing or some statute (I think only VT has true constitutional carry and has never enacted a statute one way or the other). Don't quote me if concealed carry is subject to intermediate scrutiny.

Rational basis means that the government can have any rational basis to enact a regulation and that regulation is ok. Let's use the machine gun registry as an example. The plaintiff has to prove that the government has no rational (aka reasonable) basis for enacting the machine gun registry. If the government has evidence that the registry prevents crime and is effective and there are no other good alternatives, then the government's case is solid. Obviously, this is a hard hill to climb for most plaintiffs unless there is clear evidence of government malice, ineptitude, etc.

Again, I am not a lawyer. Google and YouTube are your friends.
Click to expand...

Knuckle Dragger said:
That's a pretty good description. I'll just add a few relevant points. The government usually gets a pass on the first heightened scrutiny test - compelling government interest. Some people do bad things with guns, spoiling it for everyone, and the government has a compelling interest in public safety. That's never really in dispute.

However, in order to prevail under heightened scrutiny, the government must also demonstrate that the challenged law or regulation is likely to be effective and is also the least restrictive means of serving that compelling government interest. This is where the wheels come off the bus in Second Amendment cases. While the courts have typically been claiming to apply heightened scrutiny, they've in fact be applying rational basis. Without evidence or skepticism, the courts have accepted the government's view that AWBs, carry bans, etc. are effective and are the the least restrictive means of ensuring public safety.

Heller left the scrutiny question open by declaring that DC's handgun ban didn't even pass rational basis muster. While I don't think this case will break the dam open on the carry outside the home question, I do think that the court will use it as a vehicle to tightened down the standard that lower court use in Second Amendment cases. If that's the case, it also means that a lot of cases in the pipeline will have to be re-framed or new cases will have to be developed to fit whatever outcome we get here. The justices are very well aware of the Second Amendment cases in the lower court pipeline and they picked this one. That doesn't mean they won't pick Rogers, or Gould, or Young when the time is right. It just means that they're picking very carefully.
Click to expand...

There's something else above all of this that I think is important and that we take for granted with virtually all other individual constitutional rights.

What does the Second Amendment protect? We know what the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc. protect because we have hundreds of years of jurisprudence. So most cases related to those rights merely tweak the equation by applying levels of scrutiny. But with 2A, the individual right was only recognized a decade ago. So SCOTUS hasn't even defined what it encompasses, and the lower courts have gone wild with it in that vacuum. That really matters, because once they define the core of the right, forget about scrutiny - that core simply can't be touched by the government at all . Think viewpoint discrimination or prior restraint in 1A cases, for example. It's off the table no matter the strength of the government's interest. There's no balancing tests allowed.

So while I think it's important that SCOTUS define scrutiny levels, it's more important that they define what policy choices and categories are simply verboten based on text and history. I think, for example, affirming Scalia's bar on prohibiting any weapons that are in common use for lawful purposes, and making clear that the government doesn't get to decide to ban any model of weapon or accessory or magazine that meets that criteria, is important.

Then the court can define levels of review for things like licensing (should be strict scrutiny), carry requirements (strict scrutiny), registration, etc. But first they need to narrow the universe of what's allowed to be done.
 
Boston4567 said:
There's something else above all of this that I think is important and that we take for granted with virtually all other individual constitutional rights.

What does the Second Amendment protect? We know what the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc. protect because we have hundreds of years of jurisprudence. So most cases related to those rights merely tweak the equation by applying levels of scrutiny. But with 2A, the individual right was only recognized a decade ago. So SCOTUS hasn't even defined what it encompasses, and the lower courts have gone wild with it in that vacuum. That really matters, because once they define the core of the right, forget about scrutiny - that core simply can't be touched by the government at all . Think viewpoint discrimination or prior restraint in 1A cases, for example. It's off the table no matter the strength of the government's interest. There's no balancing tests allowed.

So while I think it's important that SCOTUS define scrutiny levels, it's more important that they define what policy choices and categories are simply verboten based on text and history. I think, for example, affirming Scalia's bar on prohibiting any weapons that are in common use for lawful purposes, and making clear that the government doesn't get to decide to ban any model of weapon or accessory or magazine that meets that criteria, is important.

Then the court can define levels of review for things like licensing (should be strict scrutiny), carry requirements (strict scrutiny), registration, etc. But first they need to narrow the universe of what's allowed to be done.
Click to expand...

Which is why Justice Thomas referred to the 2nd Amendment as a "disfavored right" in the Supreme Court.

“If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly,” Thomas wrote in his dissent, “I have little doubt that this Court would intervene. But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court.”
Click to expand...

Clarence Thomas rips high court's decision not to hear case challenging California gun law: Second Amendment is 'disfavored right'
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Without evidence or skepticism, the courts have accepted the government's view that AWBs, carry bans, etc. are effective and are the the least restrictive means of ensuring public safety.
Click to expand...

I think that "public safety" effectively trumps all rights, 1a, 2a and it should not. Government, police has been ruled a few times not to be required to provide it or ensure it either, unless it concerns the laws that history has shown to protect the government itself.
 
C. Stockwell said:
IANAL.

There's three levels of constitutional review: strict scrutiny, intermediate, and rational basis.

If strict scrutiny applies, then the government has to prove that it had a compelling interest to regulate something and that the statute/regulation was narrowly tailored to further that interest. Let's use the Mass LTC system as an example. Mass could argue that it has a compelling interest to regulate gun ownership via licensing to prevent shootings, theft, etc. and that licensing is the least burdensome way to do that. You know that's wrong, I know that's wrong, we all know that's wrong, but it's what they would argue. If the court doesn't buy the argument and the other side can make a good counterargument (like say, look at NH/VT/Maine where ownership is not equated to licensing at all [RI requires a safety card for handguns]), then the regulation is unconstitutional. Strict scrutiny typically applies when there's a historic trend of discrimination against the group in question, like racial minorities, religious groups, and basic gun ownership.

Intermediate scrutiny is less refined of a test and applies when the group challenging the law does not have a longstanding history of constitutional protection, like the LGBT community. The plaintiff now has the burden of proving the regulation unconstitutional. In gun context, this could be laws about concealed carry. Concealed carry implicates self-defense, but is subject to government regulation via licensing or some statute (I think only VT has true constitutional carry and has never enacted a statute one way or the other). Don't quote me if concealed carry is subject to intermediate scrutiny.

Rational basis means that the government can have any rational basis to enact a regulation and that regulation is ok. Let's use the machine gun registry as an example. The plaintiff has to prove that the government has no rational (aka reasonable) basis for enacting the machine gun registry. If the government has evidence that the registry prevents crime and is effective and there are no other good alternatives, then the government's case is solid. Obviously, this is a hard hill to climb for most plaintiffs unless there is clear evidence of government malice, ineptitude, etc.

Again, I am not a lawyer. Google and YouTube are your friends.
Click to expand...
I think you did a great job explaining. From those levels of scrutiny, it seems that the only type that has been used by the judiciary for 2A cases has been Rational basis.

Knuckle Dragger said:
That's a pretty good description. I'll just add a few relevant points. The government usually gets a pass on the first heightened scrutiny test - compelling government interest. Some people do bad things with guns, spoiling it for everyone, and the government has a compelling interest in public safety. That's never really in dispute.

However, in order to prevail under heightened scrutiny, the government must also demonstrate that the challenged law or regulation is likely to be effective and is also the least restrictive means of serving that compelling government interest. This is where the wheels come off the bus in Second Amendment cases. While the courts have typically been claiming to apply heightened scrutiny, they've in fact be applying rational basis. Without evidence or skepticism, the courts have accepted the government's view that AWBs, carry bans, etc. are effective and are the the least restrictive means of ensuring public safety.

Heller left the scrutiny question open by declaring that DC's handgun ban didn't even pass rational basis muster. While I don't think this case will break the dam open on the carry outside the home question, I do think that the court will use it as a vehicle to tightened down the standard that lower court use in Second Amendment cases. If that's the case, it also means that a lot of cases in the pipeline will have to be re-framed or new cases will have to be developed to fit whatever outcome we get here. The justices are very well aware of the Second Amendment cases in the lower court pipeline and they picked this one. That doesn't mean they won't pick Rogers, or Gould, or Young when the time is right. It just means that they're picking very carefully.
Click to expand...
And this is where I see why the cert being granted is a big deal. If short barrel rifle and shotgun NFA regulation is so effective, why is it so easy for criminals to make them out of standard length rifles/shotguns and use them while the law abiding citizen has to pay a tax and wait months to be given permission to own an SBS/SBR, then those NFA items and the NFA law that regulates them is not effective and is not the least restrictive means of promoting the general welfare or public safety.

As for what the impacts will be, I agree with you that concealed/open carry will not be affected if strict scrutiny is applied as Heller affirms "reasonable regulations" are okay, but I can see the impact being May issue states must become Shall issue states so long as the person applying for the CCW pass those "reasonable regulations."

The the question becomes what regulations are reasonable? Surely a vision test and a competency test (range shooting test) would make sense, but if the range test in order to pass was to hit a coin at 100 yards 10 out of 10 times, it would not be reasonable.

Seems like if strict scrutiny is applied, AWB's, mag capacities, blue cards/FID's/FOID's are gone.
 
T-Unit said:
I think you did a great job explaining. From those levels of scrutiny, it seems that the only type that has been used by the judiciary for 2A cases has been Rational basis.
Click to expand...

Not true. The examples I gave were intentional.

The basic right to own a gun can be subject to strict scrutiny. This was the point of Heller. States/DC/Territories cannot outright prohibit gun ownership, like DC did with handgun ownership up until Heller. Note that while Heller did not come right out and say "RKBA cases should be held to strict scrutiny", Heller ruled the RKBA as fundamental. More on "fundamental" rights below. The trouble we've been having is expanding Heller's protection to other kinds of guns, like MSRs. Also note that some states, such as Louisiana, automatically require strict scrutiny to be applied in RKBA cases:

The Louisiana Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a state law that forbids felons from possessing firearms, ruling that lawmakers did not intend to invalidate the state’s weapons laws when they proposed a constitutional amendment declaring gun ownership a fundamental right.

Justice Jeff Hughes wrote in a unanimous opinion that the state’s ban on the possession of firearms by convicted felons “is not affected” by the constitutional language approved by voters in 2012.

The justices also found that the law, R.S. 14:95.1, withstood a legal test known as “strict scrutiny,” the highest level of judicial review, which became necessary after voters in 2012 overwhelmingly approved constitutional language that gave Louisiana the strongest gun-rights laws in the nation.
Click to expand...

La. Supreme Court upholds gun restrictions

I gave the example of concealed carry laws with intermediate scrutiny because self-defense has a natural law basis. The concept of self-defense dates back to time immemorial and is part of our Anglo-American common law tradition. However, the right to concealed carry is for the most part a modern one (most states enacted concealed carry laws between 1900-1990, with a big chunk towards the 70s-90s). Courts typically will do some form of historical analysis. You can see this in Heller when Scalia pulls out Dr. Johnson's Dictionary for definitions of terms like "bear" and "arms", but the (liberal) dissent instead used the modern Oxford dictionary. What Scalia was trying to do was to view the Second Amendment in the same mindset as the Founders to derive their intent.

This also brings up another extremely important part of constitutional analysis: how broadly the right is defined. Let's use the Maura Healey unlawful ban of MSRs as an example. A plaintiff against Maura would want to define the right at stake as broadly as possible, such as "the right to keep and bear arms." This would give the plaintiff more ammunition, better history and case law on their side, and encourages the court to be more cynical about the regulation, like how Justice Kennedy in Obergefell typified the right to same sex marriage as more akin to the right to live with dignity, rather than the right of two same sex individuals to receive preferential tax status. On the flip side, the government wants to define the right as narrowly as possible. Sticking with the Maura example, Mass would argue that the right at stake is the ability to own an already heavily-regulated and dangerous weapon of war, similar to a machine gun and US v. Miller, which upheld the NFA 34.

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

But yes, rational basis gets used a lot in 2A cases. Again though, it depends on the facts of the case and how broad the right is. Which finally brings up one more part of the analysis: whether or not the right is fundamental. If a right is fundamental, like say the right to bodily integrity against impermissible government searches and seizures, the right of minorities to participate in the governmental process, and the right to basic gun ownership, then the court applies strict scrutiny. A fundamental right is typically something that's immutable, or put another way, something the plaintiff cannot control. The plaintiff cannot chose to be an African American in 1960s Mississippi who gets a felony conviction for looking at a white woman - he's born as a black person, his skin color doesn't change. Which is why a lot of RKBA cases get rational basis: there is no fundamental right to machine gun ownership, per Miller.

So to back up and clarify:

If a right is fundamental and the plaintiff has an immutable trait, strict scrutiny usually applies. States can enact constitutional amendments requiring courts to apply strict scrutiny in RKBA cases. If the right is not fundamental, then the court will apply a lesser standard, such as intermediate scrutiny or rational basis. To determine if the right is fundamental, courts conduct a historical analysis and look at the facts to strike a balance between the broad wording of the plaintiff and the narrow wording of the government.

I am not a lawyer, this does not constitute legal advice, and I strongly encourage everyone to read some constitutional law cases online. Most state supreme courts and SCOTUS post newly decided cases online, free for all to view. Cornell law school also does a good job posting important cases. Oyez gives the quick and dirty summary. When people post that the common law is dead, they're posting out of ignorance. There's a whole different issue of how much judicial activism a court should use to strike down laws that restrict rights. Unfortunately for conservatives/libertarians, similarly-minded judges are often in favor of judicial restraint.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
T-Unit said:
What's the difference between non strict scrutiny and strict scrutiny? How strict? Shall not be infringed strict?
Click to expand...


Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to determine which is weightier, a constitutional right or principle or the government's interest against observance of the principle. The lesser standards are rational basis reviewand exacting or intermediate scrutiny. These standards are used to test statutes and government action at all levels of government within the United States.

The notion of "levels of judicial scrutiny", including strict scrutiny, was introduced in Footnote 4 of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), one of a series of decisions testing the constitutionality of New Deal legislation. The first and most notable case in which the Supreme Court applied the strict scrutiny standard and found the government's actions constitutional was Korematsu v. United States (1944), in which the Court upheld the exclusion of Japanese Americans from designated areas during World War II.

....

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts: when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification", such as race or national origin.

Complete article here: Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia

----------
Courts are required to address issues of constitutional rights using strict scrutiny (the reason to deny the right has to be very limited in scope and requires the highest degree of explanation as to why it must be restricted). Lower courts have for years applied intermediate scrutiny to the second amendment which is why so many AWB bans and utterly ridiculous claims come from the lower courts. This could be a great opportunity to instruct lower courts how to apply the standard for gun cases. Intermediate scrutiny is not supposed to be used for fundamental rights like the second amendment.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Dave Kopel writing for the Volokh Conspiracy: Supreme Court's New Second Amendment Case

Well worth the read. Gives a lot of background about how the courts have been sidestepping the whole 2A issue for the last 10 years.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the interesting read.

Someone made a boo-boo:
As for the impairment on training, practice, and competition, intermediate scrutiny was chosen because "seven firing ranges in New York City are available to any premises license-holder." It is absurd to contend that a public indoor range in Manhattan offers training facilities comparable to the best defensive training schools elsewhere, such as Gunsite Academy in New Hampshire.
Click to expand...
 
There's what scrutiny is described as and then there is how legislatures and courts actually use it. My experience:

Rational Basis: Anything written down as a reason is upheld in court, even if that reasoning is an incomplete sentence written in crayon by a 2 year old who is terrified of guns. (Every NJ gun law)

Intermediate: Judges actually read the crayon, pretend to have a discussion that usually focuses around the color of crayon used by the state, then uphold law without addressing part of the actual issues. (Every case brought in MA)

Strict: the State must actually talk about their position and once in a blue moon the judge actually likes firearms and strikes down a law, but then issues his own crayon ruling that does absolutely nothing to prevent the state from passing exactly the same state law written in a different color crayon (Heller)
 
T-Unit said:
Guns kill, words and searches/seizures don't.
Click to expand...

Except when searches are executed at 3 in the morning by a SWAT team.

Or when people are prosecuted for bullying on teh Interwebs that leaded to suicide. Or when speech encourages violence.


(I know you're being sarcastic. At least you better be!)
 
xtry51 said:
There's what scrutiny is described as and then there is how legislatures and courts actually use it. My experience:

Rational Basis: Anything written down as a reason is upheld in court, even if that reasoning is an incomplete sentence written in crayon by a 2 year old who is terrified of guns. (Every NJ gun law)

Intermediate: Judges actually read the crayon, pretend to have a discussion that usually focuses around the color of crayon used by the state, then uphold law without addressing part of the actual issues. (Every case brought in MA)

Strict: the State must actually talk about their position and once in a blue moon the judge actually likes firearms and strikes down a law, but then issues his own crayon ruling that does absolutely nothing to prevent the state from passing exactly the same state law written in a different color crayon (Heller)
Click to expand...
It’s common sense clearly written explanations like this that restore my faith in the common man.
 
milktree said:
Except when searches are executed at 3 in the morning by a SWAT team.

Or when people are prosecuted for bullying on teh Interwebs that leaded to suicide. Or when speech encourages violence.


(I know you're being sarcastic. At least you better be!)
Click to expand...
I don't disagree, but the judiciary largely doesn't and views 2A that way.
 
Another good read - David French writing in National Review:
The Supreme Court Has Taken a Strange Gun-Rights Case
One step at a time. Finally, it’s possible that plucking low-hanging fruit is one way to begin the long, slow process of creating a truly robust body of gun-rights precedent. The cases will build, slowly and deliberately, but they have to start somewhere. Why not start with a law that’s, well, insane?
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
Replies
13
Views
639
groundscrapers
G
New York's Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court
Replies
1
Views
291
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Supreme Court and guns in the news (search 3/4/24)
Replies
0
Views
183
Coyote33
Coyote33
Supreme Court Hears Texas Gun Store Owner’s Lawsuit Against Bump Stock Ban
2 3
Replies
87
Views
2K
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
  • Locked
Hawaii State Supreme Court Rules No Right to Bear Arms
Replies
2
Views
376
Admin
Admin
Back
Top Bottom