|
|
|
|
Guns
by Snuffy. 06/02/24 07:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iso
by AustinC. 05/21/24 05:01 PM
|
|
|
|
114 registered members (slippinlipjr, RCHRR, crenshawco, Ben2, Dragfan66, Skullworks, blade, DMC, FreeStateHunter, Big Rack, 7mmMag, somedude, bamapanic, Atoler, Young20, MikeP, Backwards cowboy, BurningBright, AuGrayghost, oldandwise, dirtwrk, outdoorguy88, doublefistful, jake44, GomerPyle, hamma, Hoytdad10, mathews prostaff, canine933, BCLC, BRP549, CeeHawk37, TideWJO, CrappieMan, courseup, Skillet, odocoileus, hallb, UARandy3, Colt1917, KSRabbit, goodman_hunter, brett.smith, Turkey_neck, SwampHunter, beano1, kyles, fillmore, burbank, bfoote, MAG, JRF, jaredhunts, YellaLineHunter, kodiak06, Shaneomac2, CatfishJunkie, Peach, Holmes, 7PTSPREAD, Brad Watson, BentBarrel, RebFormanUDA, AU7MM08, Bruno, Whiskey9, ts1979flh, DGAMBLER, deadeye48, BamaGuitarDude, Floorman1, NorthFork, TDog93, PourIron12, StateLine, rockhunter, ducky25, Cahabariverrat, treemydog, ImThere, CNC, woodduck, sanderson, Tree Dweller, bama7x57, AKB, HBWALKER14, rickyh_2, coldtrail, clayk, Bcleck90, Lil_Fella, bama_earl, BearBranch, gastoka, Dixiepatriot, brianr, Bigem1958, Team_Stuckem, BCD, mauvilla, WEMOhunter, bamamed1, Rainbowstew, 10 invisible),
483
guests, and 0
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Amendment 3
[Re: leroyb]
#1129720
10/29/14 03:49 PM
10/29/14 03:49 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 921 'Possum Trot
59Hunter
6 point
|
6 point
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 921
'Possum Trot
|
“If the challenged government action [infringes upon] a fundamental right, ... a court will review that challenged action applying strict scrutiny.” Price–Cornelison v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 1103, 1109 (10th Cir.2008) (citations omitted). Under the strict-scrutiny analysis, a statute that infringes upon a fundamental right is presumed to be unconstitutional, and the State bears the burden “to prove that the [infringement] ‘furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.’ ” Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310, ––––, 130 S.Ct. 876, 898, 175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010) (quoting Federal Election Comm'n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 464, 127 S.Ct. 2652, 168 L.Ed.2d 329 (2007)).
|
|
|
|