The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

gc70 · March 30, 2012, 11:24 PM

Did I miss something in Shepard v Madigan?

The decision says "the Court is aware that the state must establish that there is a reasonable fit between the statute and its restrictions and a substantial governmental interest." I see where the court found "that the state has ... established a substantial interest in the regulations at issue" but I saw absolutely no discussion of how the state satisfied its burden of showing "a reasonable fit between the statute and it restrictions and a substantial government objective."

Since the overarching aspect of the decision was the scope of the Second Amendment, why did the judge wander off into an incomplete discussion of an appropriate level of scrutiny (if the challenge had been within scope)?

March 30, 2012, 11:24 PM	#7
gc70 Senior Member Join Date: May 24, 2005 Location: North Carolina Posts: 2,903	Did I miss something in Shepard v Madigan? The decision says "the Court is aware that the state must establish that there is a reasonable fit between the statute and its restrictions and a substantial governmental interest." I see where the court found "that the state has ... established a substantial interest in the regulations at issue" but I saw absolutely no discussion of how the state satisfied its burden of showing "a reasonable fit between the statute and it restrictions and a substantial government objective." Since the overarching aspect of the decision was the scope of the Second Amendment, why did the judge wander off into an incomplete discussion of an appropriate level of scrutiny (if the challenge had been within scope)? Last edited by gc70; March 30, 2012 at 11:39 PM.