View Single Post
Old January 18, 2013, 04:57 PM   #30
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,544
Here's an interesting tidbit for you.

In the Kachalsky case, the Court ruled that while the licensing of public carry had a substantial effect in prohibiting the right to carry (which that panel acknowledges, exists), nevertheless, they used Intermediate Scrutiny in deciding in favor of the State.

As David Jensen writes, "Th[e] Court reasoned that there was "a critical difference" between laws that burden the ability to keep guns at home and laws that burden the ability to carry them in public. Thus inferring that because the City of New York has placed a substantial burden on the right to keep at home, by its extremely high fees. Therefore by the courts own admission (in Kachalsky) Strict Scrutiny now applies.

Yesterday, Jensen filed a 28J supplement in his Kwong case. This case is scheduled for oral arguments on Friday, Feb. 1.

We will get to see if (and how) the CA2 tries to squirm out of this corner they painted themselves into.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Kwong.28j.kachalsky.pdf (556.4 KB, 20 views)
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.03558 seconds with 8 queries