Lies the government told you Read Online Free PDF Page B

court that the law actually advances the compelling interest, without being too broad or too narrow. It cannot restrict anything outside the purview of the interest or not restrict those areas that should be restricted in order to further the interest.
    Third, the law must use the least restrictive means possible. It must be the least restrictive and least burdensome on those it affects. For example, the government cannot choose to pass a curfew law requiring all persons to be home by six o’clock because it wants to prevent the criminal activity of a few at night.
    Given that public safety and therefore crime prevention are classified as a compelling state interest, and since the correlation between gun control and crime reduction has been incorrectly accepted as truth, then very few gun regulations will be overturned even when analyzed under the strict scrutiny standard; especially when the government can lie and argue that disarming the citizens will result in a lower violent crime rate. This is not the way that our most fundamental rights should be protected. The only way to ensure the protection of the fundamental right to self-defense is to require a higher standard, enunciated by the Supreme Court in some notable First Amendment cases, which prohibits the government from impairing such fundamental liberties absent “a need to further a state interest of the highest order .” 25
    Developed, though never precisely defined, in a series of opinions by Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justice Thurgood Marshall throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the use of this standard of review illustrated that the Court required that any impairment of the fundamental right to free speech by the government would have to be justified by only the highest of state interests and applied in the most narrowly possible fashion to the successful accomplishment of that interest. Generally, only the preservation of a free society was found by the Court to be of the highest state interest. Therefore, only those gun regulations that would be vital to uphold a free society would be upheld. Those would be the most highly rational laws, such as ensuring that violent felons do not possess weapons, which had factual bases, and for which regulations the government would not need to use deception to ensure their passage. But the idea of making it difficult for everyone to defend himself or requiring that the government know—via registration—who could defend himself, is the stuff of which tyrannies are made.
    And, Don’t Worry,
the State Can Still Take Away Your Rights
    The Heller decision has another loophole that the Court avoided; that is whether or not the Second Amendment protections apply against only the federal or also against the state governments. While some lower state courts state that the Second Amendment protects the people of that state from both federal and state infringement, the majority of the courts hold that the Second Amendment protects
the individual only from federal action and the states can do whatever they want. The problem is that, if the Second Amendment does not protect the people from state action, then in effect, the Second Amendment means nothing at all. There is a reason why almost all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights have been held to apply to the states.
    Imagine if California decided to force Wicca on the people as the religion of choice, and all other religions would be banned. Would it really matter that this was not a federal regulation? This is why the majority of the amendments have been applied against the states by the Supreme Court. This is true of the First Amendment, even though it states that “ Congress shall make no law . . .” Given that the Second Amendment simply says that “the right of the people shall not be infringed,” containing no explicit mention of which government is prohibited from infringing, it should be an even stronger candidate for its application against state infringement.