View Single Post
  #53  
Old 10-07-2010, 11:24 AM
sighere's Avatar
sighere sighere is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oxnard
Posts: 320
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm with Grizzly Guy. While it's rather maddening to read the amicus brief, their push is relentless even while ignoring the facts, and twisting them around. Heller in fact goes into a pretty detailed discussion of what "bear" means, and concludes that it means to carry upon one's person. The court did not rule on CC in public in Heller, because it was not at issue. (they like narrow decisions). It's clear that your rights do not end at your doorstep, so the whole Brady argument, while seemingly reasonable on its face, is a farce when viewed in this light.

They are definitely pushing for the lowest level of scrutiny. My personal opinion is that any learned judge would quickly dispense with the "reasonableness" doctrine. Lets see... a regulation is constitutional if it's reasonable....That just does not fly when you're talking fundamental incorporated rights. I seriously doubt that the strict scrutiny standard will be applied either. Possession of deadly force in public, while IMHO is your right, it deserves some kind of special treatment. I guess we'll stay tuned to see what the courts divine...
Reply With Quote