Dieseltech09
Well-Known Fanatic
To me this seems like a better option than HR 822. What do you think?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2900:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2900:
HR 2900 Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2011
- Thread starter Dieseltech09
- Start date
Jefpainthorse
Fill in the Blank
Much better than 822. The searing question is: will it beat California and Illinois, NYC and Washington DC into compliance?
dennishoddy
Moderator
I like the wording much better as well, but I'm back to my original statement on the other bill.....why in the hell does the federal government need to interfear in things that the states are taking care of themselves?
Brian Altenhofel
Fanatic
Shouldn't incorporation of the Second Amendment already do that?
Oh yeah - "longstanding prohibitions" are "presumptively Constitutional" - DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, (2010)
All infringements against the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, other than the right to keep a handgun within your own dwelling for the specific purpose of self-defense, are subject to Due Process and therefore the opinion of the sitting Court at the time that the case is heard and subject to abrupt reversal in light of new evidence that the sitting Court finds compelling at that moment in time.
Supporters of the Second Amendment got screwed in Heller and McDonald; some were glad to bend over and take it, while others were naturally ignorant about the later ramifications of the Due Process route of incorporation and simply ate the propaganda they were fed. To incorporate an Amendment through Due Process is to say that the government is the grantor of that "right", rather than the Amendment being the protector of that Right. That is why I believe that the route that should have been taken through the Courts was Privileges or Immunities or nothing at all.
To compromise toward Due Process just for the sake of Second Amendment incorporation is to say that the People owe their Rights to the government and that government has the authority to take those Rights away.
Jefpainthorse
Fill in the Blank
I hear that, Brian. Those political jurisdictions that ignore A2 (including OK) obviously need MORE laws to help them get over their denial of the obvious.
By most counts, Arizona, Vermont, and Alaska are the only states that "get it".
By most counts, Arizona, Vermont, and Alaska are the only states that "get it".
Brian Altenhofel
Fanatic
That's exactly why the Due Process route was taken, and why the "longstanding prohibitions" part was accepted. It creates more opportunity for Second Amendment litigation.
Now the question is what level of scrutiny is required. Odds are that it will be heightened or intermediate scrutiny, which only requires the government to describe a remotely plausible reason for prohibition and the plaintiff to prove why that reason isn't remotely plausible, instead of strict scrutiny which requires the government to prove that a statute is absolutely needed to further a specific government interest in the most efficient manner and that there is no plausible alternative approach.
Now the question is what level of scrutiny is required. Odds are that it will be heightened or intermediate scrutiny, which only requires the government to describe a remotely plausible reason for prohibition and the plaintiff to prove why that reason isn't remotely plausible, instead of strict scrutiny which requires the government to prove that a statute is absolutely needed to further a specific government interest in the most efficient manner and that there is no plausible alternative approach.
