National Will the Supreme Court Use a New York City Regulation to Strike Down Gun Laws?

[Joe Link]

Will the Supreme Court Use a New York City Regulation to Strike Down Gun Laws?

Read More

 

[Stomper]

Gawd, I sure hope so!

 

[Goosebrown]

If it changes the level of scrutiny, from intermediate to strict, it's going to change EVERYTHING. At the least it is going to make carry outside the home protected in some way which should extend to concealed carry and or open carry.

They would not accept a case just to send it back saying good job guys... there is something here they want to look at and change.

Good case too. Really specific, but the result might be great for us.

Already there are semi-auto ban rulings that state specifically that under intermediary scrutiny they are upheld but would not be under strict scrutiny.

Often the court likes to work this way not moving the lever, but adjusting the fulcrum.

 

[User 1234]

Even in a good result they won't strike down all gun laws. They will probably decide which test courts should use when deciding whether a law violates the federal second amendment; strict scrutiny (the hardest test for a law to survive) intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis test (almost all laws pass the rational basis test).

 

[Greenbug]

They should use the text in the 2A to strike down the gun laws, it seems very clear....

 

[The Heretic]

" radical view of gun rights in District of Columbia v. Heller, "

No, we are not biased - says the New Yorker.

 

[Goosebrown]

They should use the text in the 2A to strike down the gun laws, it seems very clear....

Yeah. No.

All rights have constraints. You can argue against them but it's just hogswallop to believe you're going to make headway. The founders set the constitution up to go through courts like they are now.

In all future history and all alternate universes, "shall not be abridged" does not mean there won't be limits.

We CAN make the case that PROTECTED weapons are: 1) in common use. 2) not unduly dangerous (like a flamethrower or machinegun) 3) and an individual weapon like a rifle and not a crew served anti tank gun.

That draws a pretty clear line between semi-automatic weapons being protected, and the fun stuff which is not. The weapons that are not protected are still legal on a state by state basis, but not protected.

This line is what we should all be looking to keep and what this case may very well do.

Me and mrs America keep your semi-autos is a reasonable and possible place to fight.

 

[The Heretic]

Yeah. No.

All rights have constraints. You can argue against them but it's just hogswallop to believe you're going to make headway. The founders set the constitution up to go through courts like they are now.

In all future history and all alternate universes, "shall not be abridged" does not mean there won't be limits.

Those limits would be people who have violently and criminally misused weapons in the past, are not allowed weapons in the future.

We CAN make the case that PROTECTED weapons are: 1) in common use. 2) not unduly dangerous (like a flamethrower or machinegun) 3) and an individual weapon like a rifle and not a crew served anti tank gun.

That draws a pretty clear line between semi-automatic weapons being protected, and the fun stuff which is not. The weapons that are not protected are still legal on a state by state basis, but not protected.

This line is what we should all be looking to keep and what this case may very well do.

Me and mrs America keep your semi-autos is a reasonable and possible place to fight.

The reason for the Second Amendment was clearly as a balance of power, to enable the governed the ability to fight back against a tyrannical government, and to aid in a fight against an invading military.

Therefore the public has the right to any weapon that the government has, including "machine guns", flamethrowers and crew served weapons. If the public shouldn't have it, then neither should the government.

THAT is what the Founding Fathers setup - the history is very clear on that point.

Now what has happened since has been the gradual erosion of our right to keep said weapons because those in power were threatened by the very idea of a public with the ability to fight back. The erosion also applies to the understanding of what that right entails, in the courts and in the minds of the public. Those in power understand it very well, which is why they diligently work on chipping away at the right - in the courts, and in the hearts and minds of the public.