At tense Virginia rally, gun-rights supporters chanted 'We will not comply'

Cpl Mark McMiller And only a dumbass don’t understand the amount of due process to a judge happens before a TRO is issued under the Red Flag law. I’m more concerned of a false accusation of rape or a “looks guilty cause I’m Black and in the wrong place” accusation these days. Cause those are more prevalent these days then what you’re concerned with.

Capt Gregory Prickett - MAJ James Woods
Precisely my point, anytime the government gets a little to "hands on" or "intrusive" EVERYONE's knee jerk response should be "OH!!! HELL NO!!!" Then, and only then, step back and see if there is in fact an overriding compelling public interest. If there is, then and only then, should we consider an infringement on rights, and if that infringement is effective AND if the proposed solution is passes a basic cost benefit analysis. (social cost - social benefit)

I am in favor of universal background checks, but not much else when it comes to infringements on the 2nd Amendment. But I also feel that universal background checks should be at no cost to the applicant if he/she passes. If the general public has an over riding and compelling interest, the general public should foot the bill. Otherwise it seems more like a regressive tax designed to infringe upon the self-defense of the lower economic brackets.

Capt Gregory Prickett - Yes, we live in an imperfect world. Just because not all constitutional rights are evaluated under the strict scrutiny standards, does not mean they should not all be evaluated under the strict scrutiny standards.

Capt Gregory Prickett - I'm pretty sure that when the founding fathers drafted, debated, and ratified the Constitution they didn't give a thought to what I like and don't like, NOR should they have. I'm also, I'm fairly sure I understand strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis as levels of judicial review.

Strict Scrutiny
_justified by a compelling governmental interest.
_narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest.
_least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
or am I wrong?

But the focal point of my post isn't the level of judicial review. It is about what does and what does not constitute a compelling government interest. The SCOTUS has not defined it, and it probably will always be a matter of opinion.

I'm curious as to what you think you know about my likes and dislikes when it comes to what the Constitution allows government to do, and what it says government may not do. There are most certainly Constitutionally protected behaviors that I find detestable. By no means does that mean I advocate the government ignore the Constitution and prohibit that conduct on a whim. In many ways, the very foundation of the Bill of Rights is that my, your, or anyone's sensibilities are not a good and wise pillars of good governance.

So, by all means, provide me an example where strict scrutiny is not applied to a Constitutional right, and I glad that a lesser standard is used.

Hoplophobes; I like it, 1SG Dennis Hicks!

I had already read all about it, Capt Gregory Prickett, but thanks anyway. 1962