From the dissent:
Quote:
|
...it’s reasonably clear at this point that the standard is more demanding than rational-basis review and less demanding than strict scrutiny.
|
How can someone be a judge, and be that thick-headed that they only just realize
NOW that the direction from the Supreme Court is not to use Rational Basis ?
Hamilton is either like Rip VanWinkle or he's an ostrich.
Still, it's gratifying when you hear them in their own words concede a point. Why a right as basic as the right to exist - the right to survive and defend one's self doesn't warrant strict scrutiny is another issue. IMO, Hamilton, Rovner, Wood and Williams don't want a society where individuals can fend for themselves therefor they don't think strict scrutiny should apply. Which is illogical and another way of saying "we don't want people with guns so we reject any logical argument or anything that may say otherwise" They're rejecting based on their preference not on the logic of the argument.
This isn't news, their anti-2A arguments constitute a house of cards and what we're seeing is Gura take apart their house of cards one card at a time. The wheels of justice grind slowly, (I was going crazy waiting to hear something in Moore and I'm still going crazy waiting for the fricken oral arguments in Kwong!) But what I think we're seeing is the anti-gunners house of cards collapsing in slow motion.
I don't see how may issue and good cause restrictions can stand given that self defense is a right that extends beyond the home.
I think the new frontier for the antis is going to be instituting onerous permitting fees and mandatory insurance, things of that nature - throwing up any obstacles that can concievably withstand contitutional muster.