SCOTUS will hear oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago on March 2, 2010. A list of all the supporting briefs is online and Dave Hardy lists links to Dave Kopel’s commentary on a few of them.
The Brady’ s did file a brief where they argue against strict scrutiny:
“… Although the Heller Court did not articulate the proper standard of review, its opinion signaled that rigorous scrutiny would be inappropriate because it would impede the government’s ability to protect public health and safety …”
Strict scrutiny is the standard for things like freedom of speech. It would require the government demonstrate there is a compelling need for a gun control law and would require any such law to be as narrowly defined as possible. This is the exact opposite of the position New York state has taken on gun ownership since the Sullivan Law.
Basically, the Brady’s have given up on fighting incorporation and are arguing that even though there is a 2nd Amendment right, states should still have the ability to do pretty much whatever they please.
I suspect that even if the case goes our way, in places like NY the spirit of the law created by the holding will never be followed. We will be lucky if they follow the letter of the law and I highly doubt even that.
Been living here too long. Know them too well.
The antigun focus will shift to things like the environment (lead, noise) and liability. They will never go away.
So true.