Strict Scrutiny and gun control

[hack89]

US courts apply the standard of Strict Scrutiny when looking at any law that potentially infringes on any of the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights.

1. It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

2. The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

3. The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest, that is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

Much of the discussion here centers on the first point - a compelling government interest. There is no question that public safety is a compelling government interest. But the other two provisions still stand - and that is the downfall of many proposals here (and in real life for that matter.)

If you are going to argue that your gun control proposal is "reasonable" - and there are reasonable proposals - you are going to have to address all three parts of strict scrutiny.