legaleagle_45
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 834
The entire point of the Brady brief is to assert that gun laws and regulations should be evaluated by the courts using a "reasonableness standard" This is a technical legal argument dealing with the level of scrutiny which courts will apply when evaluating the constitutionality of laws (not just gun laws). There are 3 levels of scrutiny employed by the courts:
1.) Strict scrutiny, which requires a "compelling governmental interest" and the breadth of the law is "narrowly tailored" so that the impact of the law only applies to those instances where the "compelling governmental interest" arises. When strict scrutiny is applied, the law is almost always found unconstitutional.
2.) Heightened scrutiny, which requires an "important governmental interest" and the breadth of that law is not overly broad. When heightened scrutiny is applied, the law usually is found unconstitutional.
3.) Reasonable relationship scrutiny which requires merely that the object of the legislation be reasonably related to a legitimate subject of governmental concern. Essentially, the test merely requires the government to give a reason for the law which does not make the judges break out in uncontrolled laughter. A law subject to this test is almost always found to be constitutional.
What is interesting is that this issue was already decided in Heller, with the court specifically rejecting reasonable relationship scrutiny. Essentially, the Brady brief is asking SCOTUS to overrule Heller.
Brief available here:
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/08-1521acbrady.pdf
1.) Strict scrutiny, which requires a "compelling governmental interest" and the breadth of the law is "narrowly tailored" so that the impact of the law only applies to those instances where the "compelling governmental interest" arises. When strict scrutiny is applied, the law is almost always found unconstitutional.
2.) Heightened scrutiny, which requires an "important governmental interest" and the breadth of that law is not overly broad. When heightened scrutiny is applied, the law usually is found unconstitutional.
3.) Reasonable relationship scrutiny which requires merely that the object of the legislation be reasonably related to a legitimate subject of governmental concern. Essentially, the test merely requires the government to give a reason for the law which does not make the judges break out in uncontrolled laughter. A law subject to this test is almost always found to be constitutional.
What is interesting is that this issue was already decided in Heller, with the court specifically rejecting reasonable relationship scrutiny. Essentially, the Brady brief is asking SCOTUS to overrule Heller.
Brief available here:
http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/08-1521acbrady.pdf
