it requires individuals to spend a lot of money trying to regain bits and pieces of rights that are supposed to be guaranteed
This is Otis McDonald, of McDonald vs. Chicago.
Do you think HE would have had the right to keep and bear arms in 1750? What about 1850?
At least learn something about the case.
I don't know what you're talking about. In the 19th century and 18th century most men were armed.
Completely OT: He looks like Morgan Freeman, somewhat. Neat!
JUSTICE
KENNEDY: I understood the Chief Justice's question -- maybe I misunderstood it, but my understanding of the question that's important is this. Under incorporation by reference, the States are bound by the rights in all -- with all of the refinements and sophistication with which we interpret them for the Federal Government. It's the same. You don't just apply the core of the right. You apply all of the right as it is elaborated by the cases.
Is -- is that same consequence -- does that
(But if I had to guess it would be heightened intermediate scrutiny.)
I mean, Roberts and Kennedy asked the question as to how the 2nd Amendment would be applied against the States. Why would they ask that question if no decision on scrutiny and/or a framework is set for what the States have to follow? It would seem to me, that by asking those questions, an answer will be provided.
ArmedBear said:What follows is that the ruling will, like Heller, say that there is room for "reasonable restrictions", as there is with the First Amendment, and, for that matter, all guaranteed rights.
Bart said:Well, if you'll recall, Chief Justice Roberts actually asked Feldman repeatedly why they were discussing scrutiny when this case was only about incorporation. When Roberts discussed scrutiny, it was repeatedly in the context of telling Feldman that he was arguing scrutiny issues not incorporation. That alone tells me the Chief is not real interested in elaborating on scrutiny.
Jamie C. said:I don't know how much truth there is to any of those opinions, but if that actually happens, I would think Strict Scrutiny is very likely, if not certain.
Yup. It's kind of hard to wiggle around "shall not be infringed". It says "NO!" plain and simple! I see no "if", no "and", no "or", no "but", no "unless", etc., etc.
cbrgator said:Justices will wiggle around anything they want to. I don't think they will here but it would be foolish to think they couldn't.
Agreed 100%.chances = 0%
scotusblog hints that they are leaning toward ruling with states and cities deciding 'reasonable restrictions' and that is still 2a protected (?)
translation = we're back to where we started with regulation and ban of so called 'assault weapons'; a permt and registration system; mag limits etc. Although i guess havingthe highcourt rule that guns aren't just hunting or state militias is good (like i needed a 5-4 decision and to wait decades for a decision to know that)