The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, in a divided 7-4 ruling, wrote that the ammunition ban is "a reasonable fit for the important government interest of reducing gun violence."
"a reasonable fit for the important government interest of reducing gun violence."
"a reasonable fit for the important government interest of reducing gun violence."
"a reasonable fit for the important government interest of reducing gun violence."
"government interest"
"GOVERNMENT interest"
That’s just the wording of the intermediate scrutiny standard created long ago by SCOTUS.
You should be highlighting that standard as a GOOD thing, because standards like that are almost completely unique to American law.
You contest a government action as an infringement on an asserted right, and the
government has to justify to a court why the action was proper in scope and related to a “legitimate government interest.” In the context of a state criminal law, that interest is as broad as “protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens.” Federal government has far fewer interests due to limited powers.
(sidebar… this is why state elections matter way more than federal elections: states have police powers with extremely broad scope)
You don’t have to justify the exercise of your asserted right; your argument is that the government’s action was not justified for some reason (arbitrary, overbroad, etc.).
If you want a higher standard of scrutiny, you have to convince a court that possession of 11+ round magazines is a core component of the 2nd Amendment. Justice Scalia just about crushed those arguments in
Heller by including language about the permissibility of certain types of long-standing or generally accepted regulations.
9th Circuit can legitimately quote
Heller and uphold the CA mag ban until SCOTUS clarifies the legal importance of standard capacity magazines—an issue that’s never been litigated at that level.
www.foxnews.com
