Posted 19 March 2020 - 11:44 PM
It would be funny if the judges decide since the lawyer said IF it was a fundamental right, which according to him isn't, then strict scrutiny should apply, and because it has already been ruled a fundamental right then the court applies strict scrutiny.
I am hoping for the same thing. Their lawyer may get us strict scrutiny.
That is what I was thinking when I read that. "Does the lawyer not realize that they may have literally become the cause of setting a precedent for ONLY applying strict scrutiny for anything relating to or regarding the Second Amendment?" went through my head.
I hope this therefore gets appealed up the chain, and ends up in front of a panel of judges Federally (SCOTUS even) who seizes on that and puts this down once and for all.
Edited by ChicagoRonin70, 19 March 2020 - 11:47 PM.
"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of free speech, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?
"One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest." —Me
"Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck."—Samurai proverb
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."—Robert Heinlein
"I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist."—Me
"It ain't braggin' if you done it."—Will Rogers