Featured Trump just got his first approval rating as president — and it's not good

Absolutely. But is there any question about the extent Hillary wished to take it and why? "Truthfully"? I'd say it is pretty clear that in her defeat our gun rights ..."dodged a bullet"...

 

Would she have pushed further than you want? Absolutely. But that would be a virtual certainty for anyone who didn't want to roll back gun control.

 

I don't have a clear answer. I wouldn't support banning guns, certainly. It would have to be a case-by-case situation. In general, I think there would need to be a compelling interest (which exists, IMO, at least for some regulation) and the regulation would need to be the least restrictive way to achieve that interest.

The other part wasn't on your initial post at first.

Government should not attempt to restrict church attendance after 5 PM on Sundays because there is no legitimate justification to do so. The government has no compelling interest to attempt anything, as church attendance times pose no threat to public safety.

 

Yes, and I would support a magazine restriction.

 

I misunderstood your post. The yes was about the magazine restriction (or similar gun measures).

The other is theoretically possible, but I can't imagine government establishing a compelling interest to restrict church attendance (apart from possibly in isolated emergency situations--not allowing groups of any kind to meet if there is some legitimate reason, and churches would get lumped in). Targeting a church would not survive judicial scrutiny.

I'm using the term compelling interest on purpose--it requires a very high level of justification, not just any "reason".

 

That dictionary definition is irrelevant in US jurisprudence.

 

Oh come on. You don't need a law degree for that basic fact. If you do, where's yours?

SCOTUS has upheld at least some gun regulations, so it is indisputable that legal precedent does not rely on the definition that you provided. It is therefore irrelevant, your sarcasm notwithstanding.

 

In order to address those who are not law abiding. If there is no other way, the restriction may need to be universal for public safety purposes.

But most of the time, a regulation will need to be more narrowly defined.

 

My apologies, then, regarding the law degree.

You can disagree with some of the decisions (all of us disagree with some decisions, I would imagine), but my point was simply that SCOTUS has indeed upheld some regulations. If it has upheld even one regulation, that mere fact would be sufficient to establish that "shall not be infringed" was not being interpreted in a manner consistent with an interpretation equating regulation with infringement by definition. Rather, the court has evaluated challenged regulations, upholding some, and striking down others.

I wasn't intending to state that there was binding precedent to establish the meaning of "shall not be infringed." The court indeed has not outlined a clear definition on this point. It has, however, ruled in a way inconsistent with a definition that regulation automatically equals infringement.

 

Honestly, I can't construct an argument for a specific compelling interest. I will admit that legal expertise is necessary in this area.

On the second point, the narrowest possible way/ least restrictive means to satisfy the compelling interest.