What kind of Scrutiny does SCOTUS use - Page 3

What kind of Scrutiny does SCOTUS use

This is a discussion on What kind of Scrutiny does SCOTUS use within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by ArmyMan For the millionth time, because of " Strict Scrutiny ". Right trumps preference every time, according to SCOTUS. Let's say you ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 36 of 36
Like Tree13Likes

Thread: What kind of Scrutiny does SCOTUS use

  1. #31
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,665
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    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.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson


  2. #32
    Ex Member Array ArmyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    594
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    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.

  3. #33
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,053
    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.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  4. #34
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,533
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  5. #35
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,665
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    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.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  6. #36
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,980
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    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.
    Hopyard and tacman605 like this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

conceal and carry strict scrutiny
,
decide which scrutiny to use
,
florida does not use intermediate scrutiny
,
gun level of scrutiny
,
how does scotus decide scrutiny?
,
second amendment strict scrutiny and regulations
,

sort of scrunity

,
terry search and 2nd amendment strict scrutiny
,
the am rounkdupobamas stomp on scotus
,
what level of scrutiny did heller establish
,

when deciding the constitutionality of laws and regulations that affect fundamental rights the courts use what kind of r

,
which level of scrutiny is used to allow
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors