Clement is trying to create multiple forms of intermediate scrutiny. Sounds like a good idea - intermediate was way too broad.
While I'm stoked Clement mentioned San Diego's ridiculous system, I didn't like his choice of phrasing:
Quote:
The court then went on to
uphold San Diego’s de facto ban on the reasoning
that the county has “an important interest in
reducing the number of concealed weapons in public.”
|
Every anti on the Court is going to read that and say, "Yeah, so? Of course they want to reduce concealed weapons in public." More importantly, such language won't sway that 5th vote. If he couldn't phrase it in terms of the infringement of civil rights / disobedience to the SCOTUS precedent, etc, he should have omitted the example entirely.
But he ends strongly with good stuff from
Moore v Madigan and
US v Skoien.
Hope it helps.