Emerson: Best case scenario

Lots of good replys. I realize I wont be getting that brand new pair of G3s any time soon, or ever. But radical changes in the law have happened before.

------------------
Gun control started the Revolutionary War!..."itcta alea est"
 
Tbeck: when I wrote the paragraph above:

"If the 2A is considered a "basic personal right", only Federal gun control laws that can be *proven* to be effective at reducing crime could stand. And such are VERY few and far between."

I was really saying "strict scrutiny", but avoiding that "legalese" phrase.

See, the government is allowed to discriminate in areas that do NOT affect "basic rights" if their actions pass a "rational basis" test, which they usually win. But if they screw with basic rights, or discriminate on a racial basis, their actions must pass a "strict scrutiny" test which really translates to "there better be a DAMN good reason to pull that crap".

For a practical example of the implications of "rational basis" versus "strict scrutiny", see also my pleading in my brand-shiny-new Fed suit: http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=29055

Jim
 
That strict scrutiny business has always torqued me; It basically boils down to the Supremes saying, "Well, the Constitution says you can't do this, but since you've got a good reason..." It has reduced the Bill of Rights to a Bill of Suggestions.

Fellas, it doesn't say, "shall not be infringed without an awfully good reason", it says, "shall not be infringed"; Is the word "not" so hard to understand?

If they've got such a good reason for violating one of the Constitution's dictates, then surely they could get it amended, right?

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!

[This message has been edited by Brett Bellmore (edited September 20, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top