Replies

Sanford Levinson, a liberal constitutional scholar at the University of Texas who believes that the Second Amendment protects individual rights, called the administration's position "a gift to the Democratic Party" and urged his party's presidential candidates to embrace it.

The view that the amendment guarantees gun ownership subject to reasonable government restrictions is one that most voters would endorse, Levinson said.

No, not "reasonable restrictions. What part of "shall not be infringed" allows "reasonable" restrictions. This brief calls for "height ed scrutiny" of gun control laws. But the very least that the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights is "strict scrutiny". The difference is that in the former, the government would only need to show some legitimate "governmental purpose" for the restriction. They would not have to show that the restriction was effective in addressing that government purpose. Nor would they have to show that the restriction was the minimum possible to address the "governmental purpose".

Very few gun control laws could pass the "strict scrutiny" test. Most could and cording the governments brief, all current federal ones would.

A pox on both the "No individual right" and "resonable restrictions" bastids.

What part of “shall not be infringed” allows “reasonable” restrictions.

But that is not even the issue in this limited case. Only a a wholesale ban of a category of arms is prohibited by the Heller decision. Fees, taxes, background checks, delays, and carry restrictions are permitted under Heller. (Which is good, because it is a solid, limited step, making a foundation for future cases.)