Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: DC v. Heller respondent Liberty Legal Institute, Suzanna Gratia Hupp address amicus United States

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA

    Post imported post

    The Second Amendment right at issue in this
    case should receive the same judicial treatment as
    other enumerated individual rights within the Bill of
    Rights. Amicus United States posits an intermediate
    scrutiny test as an all-encompassing test for analyzing
    any restriction on the Second Amendment right.
    The United States cites the need to prohibit “machineguns”
    and the maintenance of other tertiary
    regulations of gun ownership and gun commerce for
    its advocacy of the intermediate scrutiny test. This is
    the equivalent of advocating that, because of the
    proliferation of adult book stores or out of control
    commercial speech, the intermediate scrutiny tests
    employed for such expressive activity should be
    transposed to regulations of core political and religious
    speech or even outright bans on First Amendment
    activities altogether. Fortunately, this Court has
    distinguished the exercise of First Amendment freedoms
    and the context of the expression of those
    It is unnecessary for a lesser level of scrutiny to
    cast a long shadow across core protected Second
    Amendment activity. Instead, the scope of Second
    Amendment protection is determined by the type of
    firearm and the activity for which the firearm is used.
    Cf. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 420 (1992)
    (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment) (“The scope of
    the First Amendment is determined by the content of
    expressive activity. . . .”). First, categorical bans on all
    gun ownership are per se unconstitutional. Second,
    regulations of core protected firearms, such as those
    descendent from the firearms regularly carried and
    employed by citizens in the founding era, should
    receive strict scrutiny analysis. Finally, there are
    categories of speech that this Court has deemed
    unprotected speech. Petitioners and Amicus United
    States attempt to seize upon a perceived aversion to
    machine guns and other weapons beyond this case in
    order to justify applying a lesser level of judicial
    scrutiny to all gun bans. That is the equivalent of
    arguing that because there are words such as fighting
    words or obscenity, all speech regulations should be
    analyzed using diluted scrutiny. This is not the law.
    There is no need for the Court to reinvent the
    wheel when analyzing the Second Amendment with
    decades of established individual rights analysis at
    its disposal. Adopting a ‘one size fits all’ approach
    instead of implementing the precision analytical tools
    already established by and available to the Court
    would lead to unartful analysis and an unnecessary
    loss of freedom.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Laveen, Arizona, USA

    Post imported post

    I'm glad to see my hero, Mrs Hupp weigh in on this.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts