@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:oralloy wrote:Sure it does. Strict scrutiny means that a law is only constitutional if the government has a compelling reason to have it, and even then only if the law is narrowly tailored to address that compelling need.
Heller did not establish a strict scrutiny standard.
True. They left that decision for future rulings. But strict scrutiny is the only legitimate standard for such a core right.
joefromchicago wrote:oralloy wrote:The government has no compelling need to ban cosmetic features like pistol grips and flash suppressors.
And any law that bans them along with other things, is not narrowly tailored.
No doubt you've read
the DC Circuit Court's opinion.
It's just yet another lower-court ruling that ignores reality and ignores the Constitution. As soon as the assault weapons issue reaches the Supreme Court itself, it'll be overturned.
The claim that a pistol grip allows some sort of "spray firing from the hip" posture is silly. If someone were to take a gun and spray random shots without aiming, "shooting from the hip" would be indistinguishable from a random spray of fire with the gun "at the shoulder". It is also unlikely that anyone outside a Hollywood movie has even attempted such a thing.
The claim that the pistol grip somehow makes the gun more stable in rapid fire is just some nonsense that the anti-gunners made up. But in any case, I don't see why the government would have a compelling need to make guns less accurate. Would they be hoping that people who are shooting in self defense miss more often and hit more innocent bystanders?
