(07-07-2022 11:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 10:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 08:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  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

THIS is where I think we run afoul with our left leaning friends.
They seem willing to do 'whatever they can' to address the issue... which on an emotional level makes sense... but it ignores that because they are speaking of restricting a constitutionally protected right, that they have to be much more specific and 'least restrictive'. You can't just 'do anything'... you have to do something that REALLY has a chance to work.
The idea that restricting in ANY way 100+mm people's rights through things as in Heller in order to impact perhaps a dozen is the 'least restrictive' option available is just mind boggling.

If it doesn't offer the prospect of materially reducing gun violence, I don't see how it can possibly meet the "compelling interest" test. And when "assault weapons," however defined (and nobody seems to know what the definition is) account for something on the order of 100 deaths a year out of 30,000+, I don't see how an "assault weapons ban" meets the "compelling interest" prong, much less "narrowly tailored" or "least restrictive."

But 'military style weapons' (and I guess its counterpart 'military style injuries') is just so emotive it cannot go to waste politically. Never, ever, stand between a determined progressive and the use of an emotive war cry.