Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

No scrutiny

Discussion in 'Legal' started by MakAttak, Jun 26, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MakAttak

    MakAttak Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    898
    Location:
    VA
    No scrutiny level specified in the Heller decision.

    More lawsuits. Yay! (sarcasm)

     
  2. K-Romulus

    K-Romulus Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2003
    Messages:
    1,146
    Location:
    Somewhere in Monkey County, MD
    yeah, but see pg.56 n27:
     
  3. usmarine0352_2005

    usmarine0352_2005 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,797


    Whats this mean in layman's terms?
     
  4. AJ Dual

    AJ Dual member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,095
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    That the 2nd Amendment obviously supports (enumerates)the PRE-EXISTING right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

    So if the constitutional prohibition on "ludicrous laws" were sufficient to protect RKBA, the 2A would never have been needed. Or conversely, if it were blatantly logical that there was no need for RKBA, the 2A would be invalid as an "irrational law".

    And that's actualy touching on the origins of the slightly clumsy wording of the 2A IMO. It was kind of an afterthought during the constitutional convention because many of the framers DID think that RKBA was "obvious" and did not need enumeration.

    Then the preamble to the 2A got added in there because it got dragged into the larger federalist/antifederalist fight over states rights.
     
  5. security6

    security6 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    117
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    The court didn't state a level of scrutiny because they didn't have to. The case was a lot closer than any of us thought it would be, and I think Scalia kept it narrow to get Kennedy's vote.

    I think the 2nd amendment will almost certainly get strict scrutiny because it is an easy argument that it is a fundamental right (fundamental rights get strict scrutiny).
     
  6. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    The reference is to the basic principle that all federal laws passed via the commerce clause (which is almost all of them) must have some rational basis in order to be Constitutional. But this is an extremely easy hurdle to get past. It does not mean they have to be good laws, or even that they have to make much sense. But they have to have some bare minimum rational basis. If that's all that the Second required it would be redundant, since that much is required for ANY law.
     
  7. telkontar

    telkontar Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    117
    Location:
    SW Idaho
    If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect."

    Scalia says the 2A is there for a specific reason. "Rational basis" scrutiny means that a law would be consitutional as long as there is some rational basis for its existence. [Eg., town council thinks citizens are "safer" with gun ban, therefor the law has a rational basis and survives Constitutional scrutiny.] Scalia's argument here is that if the test were rational basis, the 2nd Amendment would be meaningless.

    Because no level of scrutiny was decided in Heller, Scalia at least throws out rational basis.

    Intermediate scrutiny is met if a regulation involves important governmental interests that are furthered by substantially related means. One general area of intermediate scrutiny is "time, place, and manner" restrictions on free speech (only minimal restrictions are allowed for speech which is an enumerated right, as the RKBA is). I don't remember law school well enough to postulate how intermediate scrutiny would apply.
     
  8. Sebastian the Ibis
    • Contributing Member

    Sebastian the Ibis Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,820
    Location:
    "The Gunshine State"
    In layman's terms

    The level of scrutiny determines how close a court will look into the policy behind some law to see if it violates the constitution.

    Rational Basis, is used for most laws. Generally if the government can come up with any reason why the law is necessary it will be upheld. i.e. No trucks longer than Xlbs can do Y. + necessary to protect bridges = Ok.

    Strict Scrutiny, is usually used when something suspicious is going on with the law. Racial classifications is the best example. If there is something suspicious- then the court will scrutinize it strictly to make sure that the law is absolutely necessary to carry out a significant public policy, and there are no alternatives.

    Intermediate is somewhere in the middle.
     
  9. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    I also thought it was nice how Scalia pointed out that the Second was an enumerated right and that the D.C. law didn't pass any test that had traditionally been applied to enumerated rights (rights expressly protected in the Constitution).

    That little blurb alone should help put some teeth in Second Amendment protections. At the same time, Scalia avoided a sensitive area that might have caused an already close decision to slide the wrong way.
     
  10. TX1911fan

    TX1911fan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,013
    It is clear from reading this opinion that Scalia had to walk a tightrope to keep Kennedy on board. It was a good first step, and if we can get a President who will appoint decent Justices, it will get bolstered with future rulings. Go the other way and we're screwed.
     
  11. Crashola

    Crashola Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    134
    Location:
    Idaho
    It certainly is interesting to read the decision and try to decide what level of review courts will need to use for Second Amendment cases. The decision doesn't give legislatures much of a roadmap for the future. I think the Court would be hard-pressed to apply a rational basis review to an enumerated right. On the other hand, I wonder if the Court could really balance an application of strict scrutiny while noting that concealed carry, felon possession laws, etc. pass constitutional muster. My worry is that to do so would water down what it means to apply strict scrutiny. My guess is that it will eventually get some kind of intermediate scrutiny.
     
  12. AJ Dual

    AJ Dual member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,095
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Scalia peppered the whole thing with allusions to all the stuff we'd have liked to have seen in the RKBA wet-dream version, 14th Amendment incorporation, even rolling back huge chunks of NFA '34 with his musings on Miller!

    Unfortunately it's all in the dicta, and not the actual decision, as others have said, ostensibly it was to keep Kennedy on board.

    A careful reading reveals Justice Scalia did everything he could for us and still keep the majority. He deserves our thanks.
     
  13. rocinante

    rocinante Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,306
    Location:
    Alpharetta GA
    Wasn't part of the panic in the Solicitor General's brief over the strict level of scrutiny the lower court used and wanted the SCOTUS to flip it back to that judge with instructions to use a much much lower standard? Does that have some bearing?

    Seems Scalia demolished the means testing type of scrutiny pretty well. I would think any judge who gets a 2nd amendment cause would be compelled to take a very cautious approach to stepped on it now.
     
  14. Jdude

    Jdude Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    380
    This is exactly how I interpreted it as well.
     
  15. ctdonath

    ctdonath Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,618
    Location:
    Cumming GA
    Seems he replaced it with commonality testing, which is pretty perverse.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page