View Single Post
  #5  
Old 12-12-2014, 3:40 PM
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,619
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Peruta used the 2-step approach, in step 2, though they realized, they need not use the means end scrutiny, because the law went too far under any form of review it did not pass constitutional muster. I think you may be operating with your own vernacular which I don't share and which is why your post was confusing to me. I would refrain from introducing your own vocabulary (i.e. your self numbered steps) when discussing 2A two-step analysis. Rather use what the courts are stating (steps and prongs).

Here is the two step process as it's illustrated in Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, 746 F. 3d 953 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2014. Might as well look at Chovan, as it lists the two-step inquiry.

First step, we ask "whether the challenged law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment," Chovan, 735 F.3d at 1136,
(If the answer to step 1 is yes, then go to step 2)

Second step asks: If a prohibition falls within the historical scope of the Second Amendment, we must then proceed to the second step of the Second Amendment inquiry to determine the appropriate level of scrutiny.

When ascertaining the appropriate level of scrutiny, "just as in the First Amendment context," we consider:
In analyzing the first prong of the second step, the extent to which the law burdens the core of the Second Amendment right, we rely on Heller's holding that the Second Amendment has "the core lawful purpose of self-defense," 554 U.S. at 630, 128 S.Ct. 2783, and that "whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, [the Second Amendment] surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home." Id. at 635, 128 S.Ct. 2783; see also Chovan, 735 F.3d at 1138 (stating that a core right under the Second Amendment is "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home").

In analyzing the second prong of the second step, the extent to which a challenged prohibition burdens the Second Amendment right, we are likewise guided by First Amendment principles. Cf. Ezell, 651 F.3d at 706-07. As we explained in Chovan, laws which regulate only the "manner in which persons may exercise their Second Amendment rights" are less burdensome than those which bar firearm possession completely. 735 F.3d at 1138;
__________________


Last edited by Crom; 12-12-2014 at 3:43 PM..
Reply With Quote