What kind of Scrutiny does SCOTUS use

[Hopyard]

For the millionth time, because of "Strict Scrutiny". Right trumps preference every time, according to SCOTUS.

Let's say you are correct, which you are not, but let's say. What do you think happens when two rights
appear to have equal weight but are in conflict?

The answer is that legislatures and courts weigh and balance and pick a winner and a loser.

So balancing what you think is your right to carry anywhere, against property owner's right to control
their property, our lawmakers and courts have come down on the side of property owners.

Now this explanation is a bit screwy because it supposes some of your assumptions are correct. One false
assumption you are making is that rights enumerated in the BOR are binding on both the government and
private individuals or companies. MCP already addressed that in post 27.

I also think you are confusing public-accommodation anti-discrimination laws with constitutional rights.

Since the assumptions underlying your premise are invalid, the whole "strict scrutiny" thingy is way off the mark.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[ArmyMan]

Let's say you are correct, which you are not, but let's say. What do you think happens when two rights
appear to have equal weight but are in conflict?

Generally, whoever suffers less/no harm, is the party which gives way to a limited degree.

So balancing what you think is your right to carry anywhere, against property owner's right to control
their property, our lawmakers and courts have come down on the side of property owners.

Not as much as you think. We're making headway with the guns-in-cars laws.

[tacman605]

Armyman for the I don't know how many times you are stating your opinion and wants as fact. STRICT SCRUTINY is not always used in 2A cases. It is left to the states to deal with local matters. Strict Scrutiny is reserved for Constitutional Violations and the fact that Bob the grocer posts a no gun sign is not a Constitutional Violation, I really think as long as CC has gone on and gun buster signs existed if they felt it was a major, oh my God, gross Constitutional Violation they probably would have addressed it by now.

The thing you have to remember you can wish, stomp and preach "We are making progress" but as long as a law is in effect it is enforced and you must obey it like it or not. Maybe 10 years down the road things will be different then again they may take a turn for the worst who knows.

[OldVet]

[Hopyard]

Generally, whoever suffers less/no harm, is the party which gives way to a limited degree.


Not as much as you think. We're making headway with the guns-in-cars laws.

Which if you think on it, is a property right matter. It is your ability to keep a gun in what is
an extension of your home, in a certain sense. In TX our unlicensed car carry is contingent on
being the owner of the car, or an authorized user of the car; See? the property right is embedded.

[mcp1810]

Generally, whoever suffers less/no harm, is the party which gives way to a limited degree.

Exactly which is why your arguments fail.
Arms are property. The second Amendment is at its most basic level a property right. It says that the government must allow you to own and carry a particular kind of property. That property just happens to be particularly suited to combat, either defensive or offensive. So what you are asking the government to do is to make the property right of a temporary visitor (to bear arms) superior to the most basic property rights (right of exclusion) of the owner of that business. As the customer you have the choice to patronize a business or not. You are asking the government to take choice away from the business owner. SCOTUS has held that taking away the right of exclusion to a property is a taking under the fifth amendment, and therefore is unconstitutional unless the property owner is compensated.

Your harm is temporary and at your discretion. The business owners harm is permanent and mandatory.