jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
By your proffered assessment, everything can be substantially related. I would like to see some other points of view. Can you think of a single right that someone cannot come up with an argument that meets intermediate scrutiny? That is the problem with the test. It makes sense with signs at liquor stores and advertisements on commercial vehicles, but not so much with fundamental rights.
It's not my proffered assessment, it's the courts. Everything is not substantially related. Many first amendment related laws get struck down under intermediate scrutiny. Laws rarely pass strict scrutiny and rarely fail rational basis. Intermediate scrutiny is somewhere in between. The problem is that it is ill defined and can live closer to one or the other levels depending on the judge.
I certainly believe that there is a much more substantial link to public safety compared to any of the other amendments. I think it makes it easy for judges to misapply intermediate scrutiny. The real question is how do you argue a case so that judges can believe they are applying intermediate scrutiny.
I don't believe the cases have been argued correctly. My opinion is based on the court decisions and the denied cert petitions. While many people recognize that there is problem, I have not really seen anyone else try and understand and address the problem. I have yet to see any arguments changed to address the problem. It seems to me that people would rather stick their head in the sand and complain about the courts rather than understand the problem and craft better arguments.
You seem to have ignored the fatal flaw in the courts argument. Guns are inanimate objects and do not actually kill people. Its the person that really does the killing. Until you stop focusing on the negative benefits and start focusing on the societal benefits, we are going to continue to loose. A gun cannot be both bad and good at the same time. The government exempts themselves because of the beneficial effects, yet says that it cannot remain in society. Why doesn't anyone point out this hypocrisy?
Maybe there are other ways or better ways. I would like to hear them.