Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon
And another majority to undo right? I mean that's what you are worried about anyway, with this case?
|
No. Because what I am proposing does not undo anything, and as we all know, the odds of it being undone in the future is vanishingly small, as SCOTUS rarely reverses itself.
What I fear is that the current standard (yes, even taking in to account the rejection of the dissent's "interest balancing" approach) is toothless, NOT that Heller is in any danger of being reversed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown
That has the problem of the court approving of data it likes and disapproving of data it doesn't. It fails to preclude cherry-picking of data to support an argument, etc.
|
Of course. But it is a start, and better than the garbage that Breyer spewed in his dissent (even if it was rejected by the majority).
ETA: And why not take a scientific approach, and include some sort of testable metric that can be applied in the future, and provide sunset provisions if the metrics fail?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall
"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." -
Kamala Harris
Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome