Originally Posted by EXCERPTI often talk to lawyers who bring gun rights cases and there is one bone of contention. They frequently shy away from mentioning any empirical evidence, saying that legal cases on guns should just involve what the constitution says. I am sympathetic and undoubtedly in a perfect world when the Bill of Rights says "Congress shall pass no law" or "shall not be infringed" those points seem pretty clear. But facts make a difference for a couple reasons. 1) At the simplest level, Justices or judges won't make rulings that they think will end up hurting people. If they think that gun ownership will harm people, they will rule restrictively. 2) The courts over time have adopted balancing tests of different levels. The First Amendment is read by the courts as really saying "Congress shall pass no law unless they have a good reason." How good of a reason depends on the level of "scrutiny" that the court requires.Originally Posted by John LottWe lucked out in the Heller decision on gunlocks, but don't expect that to always be the case.
Last edited by Doug Huffman; 07-22-2010 at 05:49 AM.