Boondock Saint
Ultimate Member
"I'm not dead yet! I feel happy... I feel happy..."
"See you on Thursday."
...why...that's today!
"I'm not dead yet! I feel happy... I feel happy..."
"See you Thursday."
Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest," and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest. A famous quip asserts that strict scrutiny is "strict in name, but fatal in practice."
For a court to apply strict scrutiny, the legislature must either have significantly abridged a fundamental right with the law's enactment or have passed a law that involves a suspect classification. Suspect classifications have come to include race, national origin, religion, alienage, and poverty.
from cornell law
HQL wasn't part of this... but I think (will have to recheck later) I saw some wording that could be applicable/assistive to challenging it.
wow 58 members and 103 guests viewing hmmnnn
Why would the HQL not be considered a "suspect classification" issue, as noted above?
The fees to apply and qualify for the HQL are frankly an obvious financial hardship for those at or below the poverty level. Poverty level citizens are unfairly placed into a position where paying for the HQL takes away the funds which may have been used to purchase the means of self defense.
Any doubts?
Yeah,
He's bluffing!
As a typical democrat politician, they will say anything to keep us little people in check. He is scared to go to the SCOTUS!
...HQL was left out of the challenge so as to more directly focus on 'banned items'.
Oh, I don't disagree! I did a lot of the initial analysis of the poverty angle, and it was some scary shit.
But for purposes of the suit, HQL was left out of the challenge so as to more directly focus on 'banned items'.
I'll post after I read tonight, but I think the rationale of the majority may just help in the HQL suit as well.
No he's not. Remember, any publicity is good publicity, even if he would lose.
I thought the case just dealt with the weapons ban. Does it include magazine limits as well???.
No he's not. Remember, any publicity is good publicity, even if he would lose.
If he were to lose at SCOTUS on his own appeal, it would kill every single AWB and mag cap limit in the country. No way whatsoever it gets to that point. The district is now looking like a lock. If we can win the following appeal (or it gets denied), he will do everything in his power to drop the case or get the law repealed. No way does he want his legacy to be "the guy who ended gun control everywhere".No he's not. Remember, any publicity is good publicity, even if he would lose.
Right. I haven't read them this time, but check out all the people on Frosh's Facebook who agree with him.
If he were to lose at SCOTUS on his own appeal, it would kill every single AWB and mag cap limit in the country. No way whatsoever it gets to that point. The district is now looking like a lock. If we can win the following appeal (or it gets denied), he will do everything in his power to drop the case or get the law repealed. No way does he want his legacy to be "the guy who ended gun control everywhere".
Maybe Frosh will let it ride then. If he goes all in and loses the anti-gunners would lose more(nationally) than we would in MD.
Then tell him to put up or shut up!
It only takes a 1 page letter to file a notice of appeal