TexasCHLforum.com

"Strict Scrutiny"

I like the way that sounds.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:"Strict Scrutiny"

I like the way that sounds.

Anygunanywhere

Me too!!!!!

It's not an "absolutist" doctrine. It doesn't meet the standard of "no infringement", or that any so-called "reasonable restriction" would constitute an infringement.

But it DOES represent the highest level of judicial scrutiny applied to any of the BOR. It only allows for state intrusion in areas where it can be demonstrated that there is a "compelling state interest".

If we can get strict scrutiny, all sorts of state and local gun restrictions will be ripe for challenge. And possibly even some federal ones.

Like, where is the compelling interest in preventing people with state-issued CHL's from carrying in National Parks and other such places?

Or for a state requiring microstamping technology with no crime fighting benefit able to be demonstrated?

Strict scrutiny could even get us nationwide CHL and reciprocity someday.

It will be interesting to see how far The Court goes with this. The Respondents' certainly paved the roadway for them.

Please explain this:

In sum, an arm is protected under ths Miller test if it is the type that (1) civilians would use, such that they could be expected to possess it for ordinary lawful purposes (in the absence of, or even despite, legal prohibition) and (2) would be useful in militia service.

The bold italicized portion, to me, means that even today full auto weapons are protected since they would be useful in militia service.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:Please explain this:

In sum, an arm is protected under ths Miller test if it is the type that (1) civilians would use, such that they could be expected to possess it for ordinary lawful purposes (in the absence of, or even despite, legal prohibition) and (2) would be useful in militia service.

The bold italicized portion, to me, means that even today full auto weapons are protected since they would be useful in militia service.

Anygunanywhere

I would interpret it as applying to some type of gun that a person could be expected to possess for "ordinary lawful purposes" even though it might be banned in some particularly (possibly unconstitutionally) repressive jurisdiction at issue.

Like handguns in DC, or AW's in CA.

At any rate, the Respondents are clearly making the argument that gun bans can be unconstitutional.

anygunanywhere wrote:Please explain this:

In sum, an arm is protected under ths Miller test if it is the type that (1) civilians would use, such that they could be expected to possess it for ordinary lawful purposes (in the absence of, or even despite, legal prohibition) and (2) would be useful in militia service.

The bold italicized portion, to me, means that even today full auto weapons are protected since they would be useful in militia service.

Anygunanywhere

That is the essence of Miller, despite the conventional thinking that it upheld gun control. It didn't. It said that if the court had been provided evidence of a short-barelled shotgun's military usefulness, they would have overturned the restriction on carrying one.

Yes, that means that with strict scrutiny and Miller, you should be able to buy 16" shotguns and 14" carbines, plus full auto arms, without being subject to NFA.

KBCraig wrote: Yes, that means that with strict scrutiny and Miller, you should be able to buy 16" shotguns and 14" carbines, plus full auto arms, without being subject to NFA.

I don't see the NFA being overturned any time soon, or ever.

But it's possible that the machine gun resistry, closed in 1986, could be re-opened to allow for new guns. Not by Heller directly of course, but through one of its legal offspring.

KBCraig wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Please explain this:

In sum, an arm is protected under ths Miller test if it is the type that (1) civilians would use, such that they could be expected to possess it for ordinary lawful purposes (in the absence of, or even despite, legal prohibition) and (2) would be useful in militia service.

The bold italicized portion, to me, means that even today full auto weapons are protected since they would be useful in militia service.

Anygunanywhere

That is the essence of Miller, despite the conventional thinking that it upheld gun control. It didn't. It said that if the court had been provided evidence of a short-barelled shotgun's military usefulness, they would have overturned the restriction on carrying one.

Yes, that means that with strict scrutiny and Miller, you should be able to buy 16" shotguns and 14" carbines, plus full auto arms, without being subject to NFA.

and by today's standards of military usage there are many more examples of short barrreled shotguns and rifles in use.