Constitutional Law

NY Daily News on Heller

Editorial here. Author seems rather lacking in knowledge about the case, e.g., that it's a 2nd Amendment and not a 14th Amendment case, and claims things came up in oral argument that did not, to my memory.

His main theme is that strict scrutiny would doom many firearm laws. It rather underscore a point Randy Barnett once made -- opponents of an individual right oppose it because they fear that much of their agenda will fail if anyone asks hard questions about it. What's strict scrutiny? That the law serves a compelling governmental interest, that it is narrowly tailored to serve that interest without impairing rights in a way not essential to it, and that it is the least restrictive way of accomplishing that end.

In short, the statute is directed at a major social problem and properly written. The legislative body didn't just pass it on the theory "there oughta be a law," and not give a hoot about whether its restrictions were really aimed at the problem.

That those opposed to an individual right (or to strict scrutiny) have heartburn over having to do this tells us something about what they themselves think of their agenda....

Full post as published by Of Arms and the Law on April 28, 2008 (boomark / email).