• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Eugene Volokh discusses IMPORTANT Second Amendment case from the 4th Circuit

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Big Second Amendment Opinion from the Fourth Circuit, Related to the Ban on Gun Possession by Domestic Violence Misdemeanants

The opinion is United States v. Chester, just decided today; thanks to Prof. Doug Berman (Sentencing Law & Policy) for the pointer.

The panel opinion, as I read it, endorses a three-tier level of review, at least for substantial restrictions on gun possession such as the one here (as opposed to milder burdens on gun possession):

(1) Historically accepted exceptions to gun rights (at least ones accepted as of the Framing, and perhaps some more) are constitutional.

(2) Substantial restrictions on gun possession that fall within the core of Second Amendment protection, described by the panel as “the right of a law-abiding, responsible citizen to possess and carry a weapon for self-defense” (note the inclusion of carrying, and not just possession in the home, as some courts have said), are probably subject to strict scrutiny.

(3) Substantial restrictions on gun possession that are neither historically accepted nor applicable to “law-abiding, responsible citizen ... possess[ing] and carry[ing] a weapon for self-defense” are subject to intermediate scrutiny, which calls for factual evaluation of whether the law is “substantially related” to a sufficiently “important government goal.” Since there will almost always be an important government goal to which the government could point — preventing death, injury, and violent crime — the main questions will likely be (a) what sort of factual evidence the government will have to show, and (b) to what extent will courts demand that the evidence specifically justify not just some restrictions but life-long (or very long-term) restrictions.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
Interesting. I haven't read the link yet, but Item 1 is expected. Item 2 is huge. Item 3 is where probably 99% of the litigation will take place. It's going to be long, ugly, expensive, and will still allow a crazy patchwork of gun laws.
 

AFPVet

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
105
Location
Indiana
I believe that once the sentence is served, the individual should have his/her rights restored. In the case of domestic violence, I believe that the individual needs to have the :cuss: beat out of them. Once that is served, the individual should be returned to society with a lesson.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
This is a huge win for Gun Rights. Strict scrutiny (hooray!) except for keeping guns and criminals apart (Intermediate scrutiny).

The right to carry, not just a right to hide in your home with the gun.

Not perfect, but clearly more than what we have gotten from any other US Circuit Court.
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Possible effect on 'Campus Carry'

This is a huge win for Gun Rights. Strict scrutiny (hooray!) except for keeping guns and criminals apart (Intermediate scrutiny).

The right to carry, not just a right to hide in your home with the gun.

Not perfect, but clearly more than what we have gotten from any other US Circuit Court.

If the courts now apply Strict Scrutiny to State college campuses and their obnoxious 'No Weapons' policies, wouldn't most of those policies FAIL?
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Besides the level of scrutiny confusion, didn't SCOTUS have a sensitive places exception in their ruling?

Well, that's disputable.

As Gun Leaders discusses here, the AG's "henchmen" asserted "Sensitive Places" during the DiGiacinto vs. the Rector and Visitors of George Mason University Oral Arguments in November, but even if the courts allow 'schools' as a so-called 'sensitive place' it seems reasonable to interpret that to mean K-12 schools, not colleges and universities where adults are carrying.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Well, that's disputable.

As Gun Leaders discusses here, the AG's "henchmen" asserted "Sensitive Places" during the DiGiacinto vs. the Rector and Visitors of George Mason University Oral Arguments in November, but even if the courts allow 'schools' as a so-called 'sensitive place' it seems reasonable to interpret that to mean K-12 schools, not colleges and universities where adults are carrying.

I don't disagree with you at all Repeater, I was just playing devil's advocate.
 
Top