Jump to content


Photo

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. The City of New York


  • Please log in to reply
205 replies to this topic

#31 Soutsidr

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 75 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 14

Posted 22 January 2019 - 09:23 PM

Cert granted!

#32 G214me

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,060 posts
  • Joined: 15-May 13

Posted 22 January 2019 - 10:27 PM

This is a great case for the supreme Court. We will get an opinion that says that the second amendment applies outside of the home, which destroys some existing bad law that we have. It also paves the way for challenges to restrictive concealed carry laws.

My greatest hope is that no matter how bad it gets in Illinois that we will see some 2nd Amendment infringements get wiped out at SCOTUS. That will be the true big win for us and will effect Illinois eventually.



#33 Colt guy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,459 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 13

Posted 22 January 2019 - 10:48 PM

This is a great case for the supreme Court. We will get an opinion that says that the second amendment applies outside of the home, which destroys some existing bad law that we have. It also paves the way for challenges to restrictive concealed carry laws.

My greatest hope is that no matter how bad it gets in Illinois that we will see some 2nd Amendment infringements get wiped out at SCOTUS. That will be the true big win for us and will effect Illinois eventually.

Sure hope so.
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.

#34 Colt guy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,459 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 13

Posted 22 January 2019 - 10:57 PM

You know I may just donate to the NYSRPA on this. Anti’s and Bloomy push money everywhere. Since there doesnt seem to be a billionaire helping our side other than our NRA dollars...we may need to start spreading money around to other organizations nationwide. Im no millionaire but this is getting ridiculous.
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.

#35 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,032 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 22 January 2019 - 11:07 PM

Excellent! From SCOTUSblog:

 

"Justices to review New York gun rights case."


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, 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

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#36 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 20,962 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 23 January 2019 - 05:35 AM

I merged 2 threads into this single thread in order to keep discussion cohesive on this potentially important case.

The threads were originally titled "Supreme Court to hear 2A case", started by NRAPistol, and "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. The City of New York: Is there a thread on this?", started by ChicagoRonin70. The new title is simple, yet descriptive. I also moved it all to the Judicial forum as one was located in National Politics.

For some reason the software didn't sort the merged posts chronologically in every case. Hopefully this hasn't made things disjointed.



#37 CILhunter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 262 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 23 January 2019 - 07:07 AM

There's a good discussion of this case at Reason (http://reason.com/bl...-whether-new-yo). A key point in the cert petition is that the lower courts claimed to apply intermediate scrutiny to the NY law, but actually used rational-basis scrutiny, a lesser standard. (You could argue that in cases such as the Highland Park AWB challenge, the court applied a standard even less rigorous than rational basis; you might call it "emotional basis" - they basically stated that, if the law makes some people feel safer, it's OK, regardless of whether the law actually makes anyone safer.)

 

The NY law is clearly ridiculous and will not survive. What's more important is that this case provides a vehicle for the Court to drive a stake through the heart of these rational-basis-masquerading-as-intermediate-scrutiny BS decisions and establish some clearer standards for deciding 2A cases. Of which this will not be the last.

 

*Flynn beat me to it**

 

A very good point.  Almost every other Constitutional right has any restrictions subject to "Strict Scrutiny" (I actually can't think of one which is less than "strict" off the top of my head, but one may be out there).  SCOTUS could clear up a bunch of the 2A cases if they just state in the initial statement of review that "We apply strict scrutiny to restrictions on individual rights (as identified by Heller)."


Edited by CILhunter, 23 January 2019 - 07:09 AM.


#38 quackersmacker

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,992 posts
  • Joined: 21-September 12

Posted 25 January 2019 - 04:52 PM

Wow, check this out!

 

https://www.thetruth...rssitem_title]]


Life Member --- NRA Endowment Level
Life Member --- Second Amendment Foundation
Life Member --- Tennessee Gun Owners
Member        --- Single Action Shooting Society    [Lt John Dunbar]
Member        --- Oak Ridge Sportsmen's Association

 
Fellow Members:  Please consider making at least an annual $25 contribution to this fine organization, which has proven its worth -----and you will then become a member of the Supporting Members Team.   In this case, it's definitely about putting your money where your mouth is!   And, getting results.  Who knows what the future holds.....these may just be some of the best dollars you'll ever spend.


#39 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,408 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 25 January 2019 - 05:21 PM

Wow. This could be big

#40 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,063 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 25 January 2019 - 05:33 PM

Wow. This could be big

 

I personally think it's the perfect starter case that doesn't get messy if done right.  The law itself is about as close to being an unconstitutional slam dunk as it gets, meaning all the Supreme Court has to include in the ruling (to lay down the rights hammer) is that the test of 'strict scrutiny' is applicable to all 2nd restrictions/infringements just like it is for 1st restrictions/infringements, in turn, forcing the lower courts to clean up and moot all their unconstitutional 'rational basis' and 'intermediate scrutiny' rulings they have been improperly handing out for decades.

 

I just hope the new conservative majority doesn't whiff and disappoint.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#41 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,173 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 25 January 2019 - 06:08 PM

I hope SCOTUS does the right thing - 2nd Amendment is a basic human right. 


The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#42 ragsbo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,469 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 05

Posted 25 January 2019 - 06:14 PM

I hope this is the case but I have been disappointed to many times before. Got my fingers crossed tho!



#43 2A4Cook

    Old and Cranky

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,440 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 14

Posted 25 January 2019 - 06:17 PM

That NYC case is a slam dunk for the city: if it already owns its residents, doesn't it automatically own their guns by extension?

#44 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,983 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 25 January 2019 - 06:39 PM

That NYC case is a slam dunk for the city: if it already owns its residents, doesn't it automatically own their guns by extension?


What do they think they are? Illinois?

Ad utrumque paratus


#45 mikew

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,085 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 04

Posted 25 January 2019 - 07:09 PM

The Brady bunch is selling this as "Life or Death" in their latest email plea.



#46 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,480 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 25 January 2019 - 07:11 PM

Not to be a Negative Nancy, but when you have judges who will uphold a ban based on people's perceived fear, what makes you think a strict scrutiny requirement will change anything? If they think a ban is in the best interests of preserving public safety against evil black rifles, they're still going to rule that way. The only way I see previous rulings and unconstitutional laws falling like dominoes is if they all make their way up to SCOTUS, and that'll be a damn long game of dominoes...
** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member
** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender
** Gun Owners of America - Annual Member
** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year American Hero Member
** Second Amendment Foundation - Life Member
** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

#47 mikew

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,085 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 04

Posted 25 January 2019 - 07:14 PM

Not to be a Negative Nancy, but when you have judges who will uphold a ban based on people's perceived fear, what makes you think a strict scrutiny requirement will change anything? If they think a ban is in the best interests of preserving public safety against evil black rifles, they're still going to rule that way. The only way I see previous rulings and unconstitutional laws falling like dominoes is if they all make their way up to SCOTUS, and that'll be a damn long game of dominoes...

The lineup in the bullpen can change between now and October.



#48 quackersmacker

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,992 posts
  • Joined: 21-September 12

Posted 25 January 2019 - 07:15 PM

Not to be a Negative Nancy, but when you have judges who will uphold a ban based on people's perceived fear, what makes you think a strict scrutiny requirement will change anything? If they think a ban is in the best interests of preserving public safety against evil black rifles, they're still going to rule that way. The only way I see previous rulings and unconstitutional laws falling like dominoes is if they all make their way up to SCOTUS, and that'll be a damn long game of dominoes...

You're missing a major point.  All judges HATE to be overruled.  If SCOTUS comes down on the right side of this decision, it's a new day for the Second Amendment.


Life Member --- NRA Endowment Level
Life Member --- Second Amendment Foundation
Life Member --- Tennessee Gun Owners
Member        --- Single Action Shooting Society    [Lt John Dunbar]
Member        --- Oak Ridge Sportsmen's Association

 
Fellow Members:  Please consider making at least an annual $25 contribution to this fine organization, which has proven its worth -----and you will then become a member of the Supporting Members Team.   In this case, it's definitely about putting your money where your mouth is!   And, getting results.  Who knows what the future holds.....these may just be some of the best dollars you'll ever spend.


#49 GWBH

    Ripcord... This is Alabama - Fire For Effect, Over...

  • Members
  • 6,477 posts
  • Joined: 30-January 08

Posted 25 January 2019 - 07:31 PM

What a shame that a right under the Constitution has come to this - simply a head shaker...

And to put the 2nd "up there" with free speech and freedom of religion. It should already be "up there".


Edited by GWBH, 25 January 2019 - 07:32 PM.

Fire Support Base Ripcord Association - the heroes of the Vietnam War have their names on a wall in Washington, DC
http://www.ripcordassociation.com/

Sgt. Phil Compton (ishmo), "L" Company (RANGER) 75th Infantry - 101st Airborne Division (Vietnam 1968 - 1969 / 1970 - 1971 )
A good man, a brave soldier, a patriot and a true friend.

PFC Patrick J. Bohan, 101 Pathfinder Detachment, 3rd Brigade - 101st Airborne Division, KIA, July 10, 1970, on FSB Ripcord
 


#50 Twostarrz

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 630 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 18

Posted 25 January 2019 - 07:36 PM

The first amendment has restrictions built in, the second is explicitly off limits.

#51 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,063 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 25 January 2019 - 08:03 PM

Not to be a Negative Nancy, but when you have judges who will uphold a ban based on people's perceived fear, what makes you think a strict scrutiny requirement will change anything?

 

If the Supreme Court says strict scrutiny must be applied and judges continue to rule on lower standards they will be overturned time and time again and look like dolts something that is more and more tarnishing to them in the higher courts.  History shows us, for the most part, the lower courts get the message when the Supreme Court hammers the point, as evidenced even in 2nd rulings with most of the Heller and McDonald principles being upheld.


Edited by Flynn, 25 January 2019 - 08:04 PM.

Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#52 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,173 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 25 January 2019 - 09:35 PM

How come the RINOpublican party never passed a 2nd Amendment protection act which mandates strict scrutiny?

Oh wait, that means that gun owners won't need them anymore and can't be used as pawns anymore. 


The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#53 Twostarrz

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 630 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 18

Posted 25 January 2019 - 09:50 PM

How come the RINOpublican party never passed a 2nd Amendment protection act which mandates strict scrutiny?
Oh wait, that means that gun owners won't need them anymore and can't be used as pawns anymore.

While we had a majority in the house and the presidency, with a 51/49 split in the senate, nothing would pass.

#54 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,063 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 25 January 2019 - 09:54 PM

 

How come the RINOpublican party never passed a 2nd Amendment protection act which mandates strict scrutiny?
Oh wait, that means that gun owners won't need them anymore and can't be used as pawns anymore.

While we had a majority in the house and the presidency, with a 51/49 split in the senate, nothing would pass.

 

 

The GOP held a 51/49 majority in the Senate by letter designation only, it really wasn't a majority by any practical means.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#55 Hipshot Percussion

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,162 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 14

Posted 25 January 2019 - 11:49 PM

Does anyone know how long it normally takes to go from the Cert being granted to a decision?


“I have fought the good fight to the end; I have run the race to the finish: I have kept the faith."  Timothy Chapter 4 verse 7
 
"Legitimate self-defense has absolutely nothing to do with the criminal misuse of guns."   Gerald Vernon, veteran firearms instructor
 
New Gunner Journal
 

#56 Bird76Mojo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,048 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 10

Posted 26 January 2019 - 05:46 AM

Like this would actually stop the anti's.. Just look at Philly's mayor. Despite knowing that he can't enact further infringements, he is, and he dared them to come arrest him for it. He just doesn't get it. He thinks he's above the state supreme court: https://pittsburgh.c...oposed-gun-ban/

https://www.nraila.o...on-of-state-law
Pittsburgh Mayor Declares Intent to Ban Guns in Violation of State Law
Friday, December 14, 2018

Yesterday, we reported that it was likely that sweeping gun control measures would be proposed in Pittsburgh. Today, Pittsburgh Mayor William Peduto held a press conference to propose a trio of anti-gun city ordinances that, if enacted, would constitute a direct violation of Pennsylvania’s state firearms preemption law and Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent. At the event, Peduto was joined by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf, who benefited from $500,000 in spending from Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety during his 2018 re-election bid, and City Council members Corey O’Connor and Erika Strassburger.

Not content to spearhead his own city’s violation of state law, Peduto called for municipalities throughout the country to ignore state statutes duly enacted by their residents’ elected representatives. A press release from the mayor’s office chronicling the conference explained, “Mayor Peduto has asked cities around the country to support Pittsburgh’s measures and/or introduce similar legislation to create nationwide momentum behind the critically needed gun changes.”

Councilmember O’Connor, who purportedly authored the anti-gun proposals, took a similar tack, stating that Pittsburgh “must seize the opportunity to make a real difference by partnering with other municipalities in the Commonwealth and cities across America to enact” gun restrictions. Councilmember Strassburger also encouraged the municipal lawlessness, stating, “I hope more cities across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the entire nation will join Pittsburgh in this critical effort.”

The three legislative proposals are a total ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, a total ban on several types of common firearms accessories and standard capacity magazines, and the development of a procedure to confiscate an individual’s firearms without due process of law.

Under the proposed semi-automatic ban, it would be “unlawful to manufacture, sell, purchase, transport, carry, store, or otherwise hold in one’s possession” a firearm defined as an “assault weapon.”

The legislation defines “assault weapon” by listing several models of commonly owned semi-automatic firearms, including the Colt AR-15 and certain configurations of the Ruger Mini-14. Moreover, the legislation goes on to add to the definition of “assault weapon” semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that meet a certain set of criteria.

The prohibition criteria for rifles is the following:

a. The firearm is a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable

magazine and has at least two of the following:

i. A folding or telescoping stock;

ii. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the

weapon;

iii. A bayonet mount;

iv. A flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash

suppressor; and

v. A grenade launcher;

Pistols would be judged under the following criteria:

b. The firearm is a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable

magazine and has at least two of the following:

i. An ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol

grip;

ii. A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash

suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer;

iii. A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the

barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger

hand without being burned;

iv. A manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is

unloaded; and

v. A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm;

The following shotguns would banned:

c. The firearm is a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following:

i. A folding or telescoping stock;

ii. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the

weapon;

iii. A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; and

iv. An ability to accept a detachable magazine;

The legislation would also prohibit the possession of machine guns lawfully registered under the National Firearms Act.

The legislative proposal targeting common firearms accessories would ban the possession of firearms magazines “that [have] the capacity of, or can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.” The ordinance would also ban any semi-automatic centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and is equipped with either a pistol grip, thumbhole stock, folding or telescoping stock, or a forward pistol grip (among other items).

Both pieces of legislation impose severe penalties on those who refuse to submit to the city’s unlawful mandates. Those who do not comply “shall be fined $1,000 and costs for each offense, and in default of payment thereof, may be imprisoned for not more than 90 days.” Moreover, the proposals provide that “[e]ach day of a continuing violation of or failure to comply… shall constitute and separate and distinct offense.” Meaning that otherwise law-abiding individuals who fail to comply with the ordinances would face potential financial ruin.

The final proposal would empower law enforcement to search for and confiscate an individual’s firearms without due process. Acting on merely a petition offered by a law enforcement official or family or household member a court could issue an order for an individual’s firearms to be seized. The individual would have no opportunity to speak or present evidence on their own behalf prior to confiscation.(Bold/Italic Type my emphasis)

The Pennsylvania General Assembly has made clear that firearms laws are a state matter and that it is unlawful for the state’s political subdivisions to regulate firearms. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6120, concerning the “Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition,” states,

No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.

The language of the statute is crystal clear. Municipalities like Pittsburgh may not pass their own firearms regulations.

However, the simple statute wasn’t simple enough for the reading challenged lawmakers of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

In the 1996 case Ortiz v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania settled the question as to whether Pittsburgh and Philadelphia could restrict commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. In finding that they could not, the court stated,

Because the ownership of firearms is constitutionally protected, its regulation is a matter of statewide concern. The constitution does not provide that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth except Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, where it may be abridged at will, but that it shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth. Thus, regulation of firearms is a matter of concern in all of Pennsylvania, not merely in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and the General Assembly, not city councils, is the proper forum for the imposition of such regulation.

Another portion of the opinion described Pittsburgh’s position as “frivolous.”

In the 2009 case National Rifle Association v. Philadelphia, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania came to the same conclusion after Philadelphia ignored the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s 1996 ruling and enacted a ban on commonly-owned firearms and a lost or stolen reporting ordinance. Citing Pennsylvania’s firearms preemption statute and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s decision in Ortiz, the Commonwealth Court struck down the local firearms ordinances. Philadelphia appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and was denied.

In pursuing their local gun control ordinances, Peduto and his anti-gun allies have demonstrated an extraordinary indifference to state law, judicial precedents, and the taxpaying constituents who will foot the bill for this political grandstanding. NRA stands ready to use all available legal avenues to ensure that the residents of Pittsburgh are never subject to these unconstitutional and unlawful proposals.


Edited by Bird76Mojo, 26 January 2019 - 05:47 AM.

Constitutional Carry - Proponent
Open Carry - Proponent
Exercise your rights - Engage in civil disobedience against unconstitutional laws - IGNORE THE F.O.I.D.


#57 Talonap

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,473 posts
  • Joined: 12-July 08

Posted 26 January 2019 - 08:37 AM

Does the SC take Witness Slips? :thinking:



#58 Scipio24

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Joined: 27-August 17

Posted 26 January 2019 - 09:19 AM

Does the SC take Witness Slips? :thinking:

 

Yes, the Constitution of the United States of America should be the only "witness slip" they need :yes:


"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem"

Translation: "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, January 30, 1787


#59 ealcala31

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 96 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 18

Posted 26 January 2019 - 07:56 PM

Not to be a Negative Nancy, but when you have judges who will uphold a ban based on people's perceived fear, what makes you think a strict scrutiny requirement will change anything?

If they think a ban is in the best interests of preserving public safety against evil black rifles, they're still going to rule that way.

The only way I see previous rulings and unconstitutional laws falling like dominoes is if they all make their way up to SCOTUS, and that'll be a damn long game of dominoes...

I agree, I think every anti-gun judge will keep the same decision and just change intermediate scrutiny to strict scrutiny. It will take one case at a time like Heller & McDonald to invalidate each and every unconstitutional gun law...

#60 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,063 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 26 January 2019 - 08:56 PM

 

I agree, I think every anti-gun judge will keep the same decision and just change intermediate scrutiny to strict scrutiny. It will take one case at a time like Heller & McDonald to invalidate each and every unconstitutional gun law...

 

 

Any Judge that rules intermediate or rational basis as strict scrutiny will be hosed and made to wear a dunce hat by the higher courts that will fall in line...

 

The test for strict scrutiny is well defined by the courts, and most of the gun control laws will never stand the test...

 

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:
 
1. It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
 
2. The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
 
3. The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, but the Court generally evaluates it separately.

Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users