SAF wins 'emergency powers' case v. North Carolina

[Dave Workman]

Washington has a similar statute!!!!


Bellevue’s SAF carves another notch in legal sixgun

Bellevue’s Second Amendment Foundation has added another victory in its stated mission of “Winning Firearms Freedom One Lawsuit at a Time” with Monday’s “win by default” over the State of North Carolina’s emergency powers statutory gun prohibition.

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[deen_ad]

Yep, WA's needs to go!

But it allows the GOVERNOR (not a Mayor) to declare an emergency. Too bad the Mayor's order was rescinded before he could be sued!!!

The "strict scrutiny" was a BIG win too. I hope that continues.

 

[ATCclears]

+1

 

[Dave Workman]

Yep, WA's needs to go!

But it allows the GOVERNOR (not a Mayor) to declare an emergency. Too bad the Mayor's order was rescinded before he could be sued!!!

The "strict scrutiny" was a BIG win too. I hope that continues.

I think you nailed it. The "strict scrutiny' language is significant, and for whatever reason, not a lot of people seem to get that. This judge really "laid down the law" as a lot of folks out here in the gun community want it.

This was, of course, only one legal hurdle. The ruling now stands because the state didn't appeal, but it stands only in that venue. Other states with similar statutes may have to be challenged legally to make this work. As I've said many times in the Examiner and elsewhere, the playing field on 2A stuff has shifted to the courts, with an eye on producing precedents so we ultimately end up with some kind of "road map" showing where the limits on 2A might be.

Most of us think "shall not be infringed" means what it says, but SCOTUS has already left room for "reasonable regulation." That's where we have to go from now on; finding the boundaries of "reasonable" regulation.

Let's be honest. We're probably going to lose some cases, and win others. It's going to be a long process, so don't expect miracles or overnight successes.

 

[deen_ad]

I think you nailed it. The "strict scrutiny' language is significant, and for whatever reason, not a lot of people seem to get that. This judge really "laid down the law" as a lot of folks out here in the gun community want it.

Trying to remember: Did Heller use "strict scrutiny"? The "reasonable restrictions" leaves a lot of room to go either way too.

 

[Dave Workman]

Trying to remember: Did Heller use "strict scrutiny"? The "reasonable restrictions" leaves a lot of room to go either way too.

No, that was one of the problems with Heller. No standard of scrutiny was established.

 

[fd15k]

No, that was one of the problems with Heller. No standard of scrutiny was established.

But one was implied - they said the right is fundamental, thus requiring "strict scrutiny".

 

[drew]

But one was implied - they said the right is fundamental, thus requiring "strict scrutiny".

The direct comparison to free speech and the general tone of the decision imply that strict scrutiny is the correct standard. I just would have liked to have it explicitly mentioned in the opinion.

At least they explicitly rejected rational basis scrutiny.

 

[Dave Workman]

The direct comparison to free speech and the general tone of the decision imply that strict scrutiny is the correct standard. I just would have liked to have it explicitly mentioned in the opinion.

At least they explicitly rejected rational basis scrutiny.

Yeah, it would have been IDEAL to see Scalia set the strict scrutiny standard in Heller. But, alas, he didn't. "Implied" really isn't the same thing, though one wishes it were.
But strict scrutiny is now part of a court ruling and we'll see where that goes.

As you undoubtedly have figured, the courts are kind of feeling their way along on this one because we are in the midst of creating/establishing case law, not simply relying on established case law.

It's rather educational watching these attorneys work this stuff. Building case law and precedent, one victory at a time.