Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Actually, I think Scalia laid out the basis for "reasonable regulation" nicely in his Heller opinion.
A reasonable regulation would be one that survived the type of strict scrutiny given other fundamental rights expressly written into the Bill of Rights.
There are likely a lot of grey areas here that could be explored endlessly; but I think one thing that would be straight out the window as not meeting that type of scrutiny is broad, preemptive bans on entire classes of firearms currently in common use.
We already do some of that - have you tried operating a transmitter without an FCC license? Until the advent of the Internet, a lot of what got said and heard in this country was controlled by people who had the capital to own and operate radio and television stations. Ever tried using a bullhorn from your front porch without a local permit in an urban area?
For that matter, practicing the religion of your choice doesn't mean we let you sacrifice virgins, marry 20 wives, or numerous other restrictions.
People should take a real good look at those types of restrictions found reasonable in the past for other Bill of Rights; because I guarantee that these arguments will surface again in the future with regard to the Second.
As for the absolutist view in favor here - it isn't realistic and it won't win. You would be lucky to get Thomas to adopt that view and no other Justice would even come close. There will need to be a GIANT change in the underlying culture of this country before that is ever accepted. Not to mention that the best way to get tto that underlying culture change is to first show that gradually removing other more ridiculous restrictions doesn't result in the sky falling.
A reasonable regulation would be one that survived the type of strict scrutiny given other fundamental rights expressly written into the Bill of Rights.
There are likely a lot of grey areas here that could be explored endlessly; but I think one thing that would be straight out the window as not meeting that type of scrutiny is broad, preemptive bans on entire classes of firearms currently in common use.
Shall we declare you not eligible to speak, practice the religion of your choice, resist unreasonable search, be tried by jury, etc. then?
We already do some of that - have you tried operating a transmitter without an FCC license? Until the advent of the Internet, a lot of what got said and heard in this country was controlled by people who had the capital to own and operate radio and television stations. Ever tried using a bullhorn from your front porch without a local permit in an urban area?
For that matter, practicing the religion of your choice doesn't mean we let you sacrifice virgins, marry 20 wives, or numerous other restrictions.
People should take a real good look at those types of restrictions found reasonable in the past for other Bill of Rights; because I guarantee that these arguments will surface again in the future with regard to the Second.
As for the absolutist view in favor here - it isn't realistic and it won't win. You would be lucky to get Thomas to adopt that view and no other Justice would even come close. There will need to be a GIANT change in the underlying culture of this country before that is ever accepted. Not to mention that the best way to get tto that underlying culture change is to first show that gradually removing other more ridiculous restrictions doesn't result in the sky falling.