Originally Posted by JimDandy
Right, but if it can't pass rational basis... if carrying a gun isn't a crime, then outlawing carrying a gun doesn't prevent crime... then how can it pass a heightened scrutiny?
"Passing" rational basis in this day and age is just a matter of opinion. The govt can always hire "experts" who will disagree completely with any position. This is true pretty much for all subjects, and it's reason # 40,752 why Gura's victory in Heller
was so monumental. You and I know carry generally is correlated with a decrease in crime, but a judge or Justices will just see our side and the other side, and note the disagreement among "experts".
Therefore, what's important isn't to pass or fail rational basis -- it's to identify it, and reject such discussion entirely. Because as we've seen lately, several disingenuous and / or clueless courts are using gussied-up rational basis and calling it heightened scrutiny.