(06-24-2022 07:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The ruling's underlying rationale was monumental. Previously, various Circuits, most notably the 9th, had put forth a two part test for if a law or regulation was violative of the 2nd Amendment. The 9th Circuit had used a two step test where the steps were: does the regulation involve and violate the 2nd Amendment, and if so, is there a rational basis or is it done with rational means by the state. The 9th used this second step to uphold a wide range of California restrictions --- to the extent that a judge sitting on the 9th circuit panel that struck a California restriction authored a concurrence saying how useless the panel decision was, denoting that even a paucity of a state rationale would probably overturn the panel decision if it went to an en banc and how liberally the 9th wielded the violation + rationale.
https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2...0524084633

States have been trying to justify gun controls using the rational basis test, which is the lowest standard for due process. Following United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938), footnote 4, a higher level of protection is afforded:

- Rights enumerated in and derived from the first eight amendments to the Constitution
- The right to participate in the political process, such as the rights of voting, association, and free speech
- The rights of "discrete and insular minorities"

As a right protected by the 2nd Amendment (note, protected not granted) the right to keep and bear arms is entitled to strict scrutiny, the highest standard, which requires that the law or regulation in question:

- is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest"
- is "narrowly tailored" to achieve the compelling purpose, and
- uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve the purpose

The source of our due process law dates back to the Magna Carta, specifically clauses 39 and 40:

"39. No free-man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
"40. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice."

The right to bear arms is tied to the right of self defense, which has been regarded as a natural right virtually from the inception of jurisprudence.

I have proposed a licensing and training system, similar to drivers licenses, which I think does meet those three prongs, or can at least be written to do so. I think the kinds of things that the gun control activists are proposing fail on at least one of the prongs, and as such do not pass constitutional muster.