Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Media Matters comes up with a loser | Main | The circle is completed... »

SG files opposition in gun in parks case

Posted by David Hardy · 20 October 2011 08:59 AM

SCOTUSBlog has a link and discussion. The brief argues that (1) the regulation has been revoked by legislation, hence its constitutionality is not worth reviewing, and (2) the regulation could be justified under intermediate scrutiny.

UPDATE: I think he's referring to intermediate scrutiny, which is applied (as I recall) to most content-neutral time-place-manner restrictions on speech. I.e., you can't use a bullhorn at night in a residential area, and we don't care which side or what issue you speak on.

· Chicago aftermath

1 Comment | Leave a comment

Jim | October 20, 2011 12:07 PM | Reply

In first amendment case law, is intermediate scrutiny used to evaluate laws restricting free speech in public places? Also, what is “mid-level scrutiny”? Is he simply referring to intermediate, or is there some other level between rational basis and intermediate?

Leave a comment