A “substantial burden” on the Second Amendment is viewed not through a policy prism but through the lens of a fundamental and enumerated constitutional right. We would be looking through the wrong end of a sight-glass if we asked whether the government permits the people to retain some of the core fundamental and enumerated right. Instead, Heller counsels us to look at whether the government regulation restricts the core fundamental right from the outset. In other words, we look to what a restriction takes away rather than what it leaves behind. Here, California’s law takes away a substantial swath of the core constitutional right of self-defense because it bans possession of half of all magazines in America today, even though they are common in guns used for self-defense. In short, a law that takes away a substantial portion of arms commonly used by citizens for self-defense imposes a substantial burden on the Second Amendment.
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press . . . and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VIRGINIA DUNCAN; RICHARD LEWIS; PATRICK LOVETTE; DAVID MARGUGLIO; CHRISTOPHER WADDELL; CALIFORNIA RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendant-Appellant
August 14, 2020
[Excellent! I had not thought of this argument before.
This addresses the claim made by some (I exaggerated a bit to make the point) that as long as we have single shot 22 rifles available the Second Amendment is not infringed.—Joe]
Heller had to tell them which end of the tube to look through? So much for that law degree? But, welcome to the party pal!
No infringement. Such a tough concept for the petty politician. And look! A right can’t be voted on? Who would have thunk it?
Better late than never. I guess.
I’m of the view that infringement and prohibition are not cozy neighbors, they are polar opposites. I view the Bill of Rights as being similar to a set of fine china, in that it is not a menu or collection, but a unitary set, and if one piece is broken, the set is broken.