|
The problem that I have with Heller/McDonald is that the decisions did not lay down a single rule for evaluating the Second Amendment, suggesting that strict scrutiny does NOT apply outside the home, an implication that has allowed any number of courts in anti-gun jurisdictions to run with the ball and apply something they CALL intermediate scrutiny but which in practice amounts to no more than "rational basis" review. One example was the Highland Park AR ban case, in which the Seventh Circuit held that even in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that banning ARs would reduce crime, an "important public interest" was served simply because it made people "feel safer." [And this from a circuit which overturned the Illinois (Chicago) gun carry ban and just today ruled that Chicago's virtual ban of gun ranges through restrictive zoning was unconstitutional.] The Maryland circuit concluded that the carry law passed intermediate scrutiny despite the fact that the standard requires the State to establish a factual basis for the law--and the Maryland State Legislature had done no such thing.
|