Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Sorry, you still don't understand due process, and most importantly, substantive due process or the courts review process in either. As I stated, there is not infringement on a fundamental right, and a judicial rational or intermediate basis review supports this. This allows the government to use restrictions by means of legislation to achieve a specific goal as reasonable and need not be tested. The rational or intermediate basis test then places burden of proof on a challenger. When the government is attempting to further interest such as public safety, of which gun control and flight access restrictions fall, are protected from challenge by intermediate scrutiny. This challenge was upheld in District of Columbia v. Heller, and confirmed that the right to bear arms is an individual right, but applied a caveat that the 2nd amendment does not define a right to keep or carry a weapon in any manner whatsoever. Restriction lists pertaining to public safety routinely pass the intermediate scrutiny muster making them law of the land and difficult to challenge on constitutional basis.
|
This may be hard to parse, but it's correct as far as I know (not being a US lawyer).
To clarify: when you're reviewing a law for its constitutionality, there are a few levels of scrutiny that a Court can apply. They can either review the law on a "strict" scrutiny basis, which is a more stringent requirement that is more likely to see it struck down. They can review it on a "rational basis", which is the least likely to see the law struck down. Or, they can apply what New Era is talking about, a level somewhere in the middle: this is called "intermediate scrutiny".
This "middle" level of scrutiny is frequently applied to laws that restrict access to gun rights - which could be challenged as offending the 2nd amendment - in furtherance of public safety.
For a law that's being reviewed on an "intermediate scrutiny" basis to be upheld (that is, not to be struck down as unconstitutional), you need two things. First, the interest the law's protecting has to be of significant importance. Public safety qualifies. Second, the method used to curtail the right must be obviously related to the interest that's being protected. That one's a bit more nuanced.
The point is, it's possible to restrict people's gun ownership rights, without giving each individual a process, for certain public policy based reasons without running afoul of the 2nd amendment.