gun_with_a_view said:
...Under strict scrutiny, all four of those regulations are presumed to be unconstitutional, and the state has the burden (and expense) to prove they are necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and not a substantial interest. A regulation must also be narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means to accomplish a desired result....
First, you are making a fundamental mistake of law. Regulations are never presumed to be unconstitutional. In fact, laws are presumed to be constitutional.
The courts give deference to legislative acts and presume statutes valid and enforceable, until unconstitutionality is determined. As the Supreme Court said in
Brown v. State of Maryland, 25 U.S. 419 (1827), at 437:
...It has been truly said, that the presumption is in favour of every legislative act, and that the whole burden of proof lies on him who denies its constitutionality....
And much more recently in
U.S. v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000):
...Due respect for the decisions of a coordinate branch of Government demands that we invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S., at 568, 577_578 (Kennedy, J., concurring); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S., at 635. With this presumption of constitutionality in mind, we turn to the question whether §13981 falls within Congress' power under Article I, §8, of the Constitution....
So in the real world a statute is valid and enforceable unless and until it is found invalid by a court having appropriate jurisdiction. You might think the law is unconstitutional, and therefore invalid, but no one cares what you think.
So it is up to the party claiming that a law is unconstitutional to at least make a
prima facies showing. Only then does the government have to argue for its validity. Indeed, that process is explicitly outlined in
Heller III (slip op, at 11):
...In Heller II, we adopted a two-step approach to determining the constitutionality of the District’s gun registration laws: “We ask first whether a particular provision impinges upon a right protected by the Second Amendment; if it does, then we go on to determine whether the provision passes muster under the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny.” 670 F.3d at 1252....
Beyond that, you are assuming that the government can't make its case under strict scrutiny. While we might hope both that strict scrutiny applies and that the government's position can't satisfy the test, neither can be a foregone conclusion.
gun_with_a_view said:
...Does anyone really think the District of Columbia can meet that burden should this case go further?...
Neither you nor I can know. Your insistence that the District of Columbia will fail is, at this point, mere guess and speculation.
gun_with_a_view said:
...Let's look at just one of the four, fingerprinting and photographing compliant gun owners with in the District. The end result there is going to be a database primarily of law-abiding citizens who did the right thing. No compelling state interest here. The cops are supposed to be looking for the bad guys.....
Maybe not to you, but whether the government can make a convincing case remains to be seen.
The reality is that you're blinded by wishful thinking. We can hope for a good outcome, but it doesn't help to be so cavalier about the opposition.
