Posted on 10/15/2014 6:42:37 AM PDT by WXRGina
BTTT
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?
BFLR
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?
Are you aware of any other definition that has legal standing?
A fundamental right may or may not be a natural, God-given right (and Publius Huldah argues it is not a natural right), but the key is in the allowing for restrictions on that right, which this amendment does.
Alabama Constitution Article 1 - Section 26 - Right to Bear Arms "That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1819, Art. I, § 23, with "defence" in place of "defense," spelling changed 1901).
Article 1 - Section 36 - Construction of Declaration of Rights That this enumeration of certain rights shall not impair or deny others retained by the people; and, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare that everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate.
I'm not a legal scholar, but it sounds as if the current laws don't really need revision. Just my two cents worth.
Well, for the moment I think Huldah's argument is weak at least in the context of the legal language of the proposition. The founders had no problem prior to adoption with referring to the matter simply as a "right". To argue that a "fundamental right" is not fundamental seems ineffective.
Nonetheless, even under the best definition of a "fundamental right" there are undeniably sensible restrictions on the right to bear; e.g., those serving time in jail are not allowed to bear arms in order to defend themselves.
We will always be faced with attempted, perhaps even logical restrictions on this right. A strict judicial scrutiny of any such attempt seems entirely appropriate.
“Strict scrutiny”
I think I’m going to steal that.
Unless it's Eric Holder whose applying the "strict scrutiny."
That should read, “... who’s applying...” not, “whose applying...” DUH. Proof reading is our friend.
True.
Unbelievably, the survival of our 2dA promise/guarantee is currently subject to a knife edge 5/4 balance. Holder may be willing to take a substantial cut in pay to sit on the USSC just for that.
Yep. That’s a big, scary possibility.
There are elected officials in Alabama that DENY the conclusions of Heller v US, and believe the right to keep and bear arms ONLY applies to the National Guard. We had an official speak to our local chapter of Bama Carry that said EXACTLY that.
People like that do not take our rights seriously. One election, and they are GONE!
You are full of nonsense on this. What does Holder have to do with what happens in Alabama? Strict scrutiny is the best friend the right to keep and bear arms has ever had. If you lose that, and it’s NOT in the Alabama 1901 Constitution now, and these gun grabbing judges will rule that the state’s interest of “safety” is compelling over our rights EVERY TIME.
It's not something that was just made up.
This is a legal term that goes back DECADES.
An absolutely nonsensical statement, that shows your ignorance of the law and legal precedent. I'm not even a lawyer, and I know better than this.
Eric Holder has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion. This is a state judiciary issue. If you don't know that, you shouldn't have written this ignorant article.
It is the most stringent level of judicial review under the 14th Amendment. Buzz words, actually. It goes with a “compelling interest” terminology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.