Defining the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? What does it mean and what will it mean in the future?
In all the excitement over the past few years with the Supreme Court cases regarding the Second Amendment many questions have been raised about how to evaluate laws that seem in conflict with this new fundamental right.
In almost every other fundamental right, the court has said that laws regulating the right have to pass a strict scrutiny, but for firearms it appears that something less is acceptable.
It is interesting that law professors from California-based law schools have decided to write a two-part series of articles on this topic. I was originally a little sceptical on an article coming from an area of the country where guns are generally shunned but found that I was surprised by the objective analysis of the authors.
Some of the main points of the first article regarding limitations are:
One Reason Heller Provides a Shaky Foundation for Doctrine: The Lack of a Discussion of the Nature of the Permissible Limitations
Another Limitation in Heller: The Imprecision About What Laws Burden Gun Ownership or Use Enough to Even Trigger the Second Amendment
Follow this link to read the more of What Will the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Mean in the Coming Years