Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-19-2022, 6:06 PM
stoogescv stoogescv is offline
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 213
iTrader: 0 / 0%

Originally Posted by ritter View Post
No doubt!

I don't hold the "not be infringed" viewpoint, rather that any such regulations be backed by something considerably more than "because we said so"--the rational basis (paraded as intermediate scrutiny CA9 is so fond of).

I guess what I'm getting at is that Heller defined text and history as the standard of review. The lower courts had their way with it and created the two-step. NYSRPA didn't create the text and history test. Heller did, it was completely ignored in step two ("because we said so"). What sucks is CA9 saying "new test!!" to get a near complete do over of all of the 2A cases that have been logjamed when there isn't a new test. It's still the Heller test, just now SCOTUS has said the two-step isn't the proper application. So, CA9 gets a do over entirely based on fabrication of 1) the two-step and 2) "new test." Frustrating.

Relevant to the thread, it'll be enlightening to see what CA9 does with Miller 2.0.
You are correct that Heller did not use interest balancing and laid out the text, history and tradition test, but a lot of people did not interpret it that way. Even on this site, we had about half the people arguing that strict scrutiny should carry the day in the NYSRP v Bruen case. There were prominent law firms arguing that strict scrutiny should be the standard even though Kavanaugh went to great lengths in Heller II and in the oral arguments in NYSRPA v Bruen to point out that he did not agree with any interest balancing, including strict scrutiny. Just look at the amicus briefs: lots of them argued for strict scrutiny. From that perspective, yes, NYSRPA v Bruen broke new ground and laid to rest intermediate and strict scrutiny for 2d Amendment.
Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2022, 5:31 AM
newbieLA newbieLA is offline
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 338
iTrader: 12 / 100%

Originally Posted by GetMeCoffee View Post
Tomorrows headline:

"Common sense gun laws are being endangered by climate change"
- Gav Newsom
This made me LOL because you know it could totally be a real headline in the LA Times
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host., the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to


Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical