one court has spoken, speech that hopefully will be rejected.
Heller v. District of Columbia, NRA's case challenging D.C.'s prohibitive firearm registration requirements, and its bans on "assault weapons" and "large capacity ammunition feeding devices." Mr. Heller was, of course, lead plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller, decided by the Supreme Court in 2008.
Judge Urbina rejected Heller's assertion that D.C.'s registration and gun and magazine bans should be subject to a "strict scrutiny" standard of review, under which they could survive only if they are justified by a compelling government interest, are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and are the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.
In support of that rejection, Urbina opined that in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Supreme Court "did not explicitly hold that the Second Amendment right is a fundamental right," and he adopted the argument of dissenting Justices in that case, that the Court's upholding of a law prohibiting possession of firearms by felons implied that the Court did not consider that laws infringing the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms should be subject to a strict scrutiny standard of review.
------------------------------
The foregoing from an NRA alert. Is one to take it that Judge Urbina and some on the USSC cannot tell the difference, or do not know or care about the difference between felons and the law abiding? One wonders. One also wonders as to the exact text of D.C.'s Assault Weapons Ban, not to mention it's source. As to "large capacity ammunition feeding devices", wither comes the definition herein involved. What of that thing sometimes described as OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer or Maker). The Browning Hi-Power, for instasnce, ORIGINALLY and to this day comes with 13 round magazines, they being MANUFACTURERS STANDARD. The widely distributed CZ-75's standard magazine holds 16 rounds, and is again MANUFACTURERS STANDARD. Re the above, where is or where might there be this "compelling government interest", which I would think would be limited by the clear meaning of stipulations of/in The Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Seems once again, sad that D.C. v Heller was not settled in the clearest possibly terms, alibet without that plethora of "lawyers talk", that it was seemingly entumbed in or with.
If this matter has already been discussed, excuse the duplication.