{"id":459,"date":"2009-12-01T12:59:28","date_gmt":"2009-12-01T17:59:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.gunpoliticsny.com\/?p=459"},"modified":"2009-12-01T13:17:14","modified_gmt":"2009-12-01T18:17:14","slug":"mcdonald-hearing-set","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.gunpoliticsny.com\/?p=459","title":{"rendered":"McDonald hearing set"},"content":{"rendered":"

SCOTUS<\/a> will hear oral arguments<\/a> in McDonald v. Chicago<\/a> on March 2, 2010. \u00a0A list of all the supporting briefs is online<\/a> and Dave Hardy lists links to Dave Kopel’s commentary<\/a> on a few of them.<\/p>\n

The Brady’ s<\/a> did file a brief where they argue against strict scrutiny<\/a>:<\/p>\n

“…\u00a0Although the Heller Court<\/a> did not articulate the proper standard of review, its opinion signaled that rigorous scrutiny would be inappropriate because it would impede the government\u2019s ability to protect public health and safety …”<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Strict scrutiny is the standard for things like freedom of speech. \u00a0It 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Basically, the Brady’s have given up on fighting incorporation<\/a> and are arguing that even though there is a 2nd Amendment<\/a> right, states should still have the ability to do pretty much whatever they please.<\/p>\n