Seems pretty clear that a specific Constitutional right should be deemed essential. But the US District Court Judge who has the same legal education as the dazzler "felt" that guns and ammo weren't essential unlike liquor stores. From the 9th Circuit a simple declarative statement on the issues of the case as they reversed the District Court Judge. ========= Ultimately, the issue boils down to the County’s designation of “essential” versus “non-essential” businesses and activities. While courts should afford some measure of deference to local policy determinations, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 636. When a government completely bans all acquisition of firearms and ammunition by closing gun shops, ammunition shops, and firing ranges, it’s one of those off-limits policy choices squarely contemplated by Heller. See id. at 630. The Orders cannot satisfy strict scrutiny.
Exactly. Church because of the inability to social distance was the argument for that the public risk was sufficient to withstand strict scrutiny. But churches argued they would social distance and still no relief from Blue States. I don't know if there are still cases in process. We just got this 2A case resolved. Then toss in that rioting was deemed essential and no subject to mandates and you realize what pieces of shit the left is and how corrupt the legal profession is. The dazzler is happy to let unvaccinated die, but anyone infected while rioting goes to the front of the line.
Comments
=========
Ultimately, the issue boils down to the County’s designation of “essential” versus “non-essential” businesses and activities. While courts should afford some measure of deference to local policy determinations, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 636. When a government completely bans all acquisition of firearms and ammunition by closing gun shops, ammunition shops, and firing ranges, it’s one of those off-limits policy choices squarely contemplated by Heller. See id. at 630. The Orders cannot satisfy strict scrutiny.