I’m not sure you’re correct about this. I’ve tagged martwain, becuase he’s very conversant with gun-rights legal issues.
Currently future legislatures and voters, via initiatives, have the power to enact new gun laws. The situation as it stands now is that should those laws be challenged in court, an easier standard than strict scrutiny may be applied.
Not having read the proposed amendment, there may be something dangerous in there, but from what you’ve posted, it just says that any future laws when challenged have to pass the most difficult hurdle to be held constititional, and specifically mentions (but does not limit itself) to international rights-theft schemes.
Is that about right, marktwain?
The proposed amendment is here in the column (linked, too).
There’s really no argument on this. The wording is clear. Whereas you once had the unalienable, un-tamperable, unrestrictable right to keep and bear arms, this amendment allows for restriction—under “strict scrutiny,” of course.
Alabama may have a pro-gun state government right now, but in the future, what do you suppose the “strict scrutiny” of any restriction by someone just like Eric Holder would look like?