[ddestruel]

there are some great juicy tid bits in there that i hope to see come into play years down the road when "in common use" comes into being challenged. what i always find interesting is the close similarities in the good cause debate and what will some day be the "in common use debate". in miller they say that in common use was defined by the military using the weapon or in that case supposedly not using. if such is the case if both the police and military are using the weapons and they are outside the scope of dangerous and unusual where as a licensing scheme exists. so in this woolard challenge it seems that the good substantial reason or good cause determination by scotus will have bearing on the future of challenging many state rationing schemes like CA's safe handgun roster or soon to be sb 47, sb 374 or sb 396. if not then the future looks bleak as they point out in many of the briefs rational bases disguised as Immd scrutiny will become the norm and all schemes will stand. i love the addition of the abortion rulings to the justification unlike the NY challenge last year gura appears to be significantly more tame and pointed in this challenge. previously his NY brief seemed to almost jump off the paper as demanding review, this one struck me as much more subtle but every bit as well founded in fact.