Sporting Rifle Ban before Supreme Court

[asmo]

I doubt the court will see it as "ripe". Not enough spilt circuit courts to justify SCOTUS getting involved..yet.

I win. What do I get?

[Irving]

I win. What do I get?

A sporting rifle?

[wctriumph]

A sporting rifle?

At only three times MSRP! But wait, there is more! You can't own any bullet clips and stuff either!! Woo Hooo!!!

[legaleagle]

Not surprised they won't hear it. When hearing constitutional issues there are three levels of review. 1-rational basis 2-intermediate scrutiny and 3-strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is applied when a constitutionally enumerated right is involved - here the 2a, which Heller and McDonald establish is the proper standard of review. 2 is for matters generally involving status of citizenship rights (alienation) and 3 is for all other laws challenged. 3 is a huge category and generally looks at the health safety and welfare of the public and whether the law challenged is over inclusive, underinclusive, violative of equal protrection and similar measures. So, to measure the feeling and well being of a ban based on safety does not work as the wrong level of scrutiny is being used to test the validity of the law. Of course the law can be passed, and left unchallenged or unwilling to be heard which leaves it on the books until the next challenge. To use the proper test of strict scrutiny places the burden on the government to show that it has a compelling reason (not just that it is better for the health safety and welfare) that the enumerated right should be restricted. This burden has traditionally been very difficult to overcome and Heller continues to support that in regards to the 2a. However, Heller was not a 9-0 decision, so there was some disagreement. As I recall, the dissent was over what level of scrutiny to apply. When looking at the 1a, limitations have been allowed as far as time, place and manner for the speech involved. This is why pornography was viewed as art, despite many people finding it offensive. Curtailing an enumeration right is no taken lightly. This is probably why LEO still has to read you your rights subject to arrest, despite most people knowing them from watching tv. It is simply too important to infringe on the right.
It is too bad that scotus will not always act to invalidate bad laws. Often it seems scotus wants to leave it up to the states. Unfortunately we are often left scratching our heads as to why scotus won't grant certiorari to hear the matter. I see this on the state level too and bad law is often created as a result. All we can do is keep fighting and funding organizations to act with our collective funds to bring cases to the courts. We must stand united, at least more united than the opposition, no matter the cause.

[Ronin13]

We must stand united, at least more united than the opposition, no matter the cause.

THIS!