View Single Post
  #975  
Old 02-08-2019, 4:23 PM
TruOil TruOil is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,845
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post

"May issue" policies effectively cause a right to become a privilege, and anyone with even basic high school civics knowledge would be able to see right through the panel's decision if it said that.

I agree, as did the Seventh Circuit in Moore v. Madigan and the D.C. carry case (whose name I always forget). But the anti-circuits have all approved "may issue" laws, which if I recall (at this time of day that is a tenuous proposition) that includes all of the usual suspects--NY, NJ, Ma, Md. All have basically concluded that out side the home= intermediate scrutiny (as they see that test), and that reasonable restrictions on all things 2A pass muster, including may issue and gun bans. So yeah, I am just prognosticating based on past history. Outside of the lack of logical rigor in those decisions, the one thing that bugs me the most is that in all of those cases the issues are decided as a matter of law on on questions of fact that should be decided by a jury. They accord legislative findings--and even the absence thereof--as binding, or they accept pone expert's opinion despite the fact that there are two or more experts who disagree. So basically it comes down to this: if a law is passed, it passes muster even if it was based on racist views or false data, but it is good because gunz is bad. And it is all a bunch of crap.
Reply With Quote