Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Strictly Scrutinous

Workman weighs in. [More]

I still don't get why anyone but an anti would object. If the argument is such cases don't belong in court in the first place, I agree.

As Picard said to Riker, "Make it so, Number One."

If you can't, then sorry. If the threat is immediate, VLLA SELLA takes precedence as far as I'm concerned.

Feel free to educate me as to why that assumption needs to be rethought.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Registration must follow..... if it only saves one child ; )

Mack said...

Gina gives clear warning.

"Fundamental Right" is a government granted privilege. Not to be confused with a Natural Right that exists in the absence of government.

The proposed amendment amends what is already there.

The way the amendment is worded, the so-called strict scrutiny language would only apply to citizens who wish to "bear" arms. Note that the proposed amendment does not include "keep" so this creates an explosive loophole that the Left can exploit.

As I commented before, what Leftist judges can do is simply opine that public safety is a compelling government interest that always/usually trumps the privilege to bear arms. It will always/absolutely trump any asserted right to keep arms.

Epic fail? We'll see.

Mack said...

As a further caution, our 'friend' Adam Winkler, published a paper of the efficacy of strict scrutiny and found it 'fatal' in too many instances.


Fatal in Theory and Strict in Fact: An Empirical Analysis of Strict Scrutiny in the Federal Courts

A popular myth in American constitutional law is that the strict scrutiny standard of review applied to enforce rights such as free speech and equal protection is, in the famous words of Gerald Gunther, 'strict' in theory and fatal in fact. In recent years, however, this traditional understanding of strict scrutiny's inevitable deadliness has been challenged ...

You should look into this, David.