H/T to our friend Mark Thomas: The debate around 777 is a real case study to me. I have had people actually tell me that the language does not qualify our rights. Mark Yates, who is one of the original proponents of 777, told me that the use of the language " without a compelling state interest" places any legislation under higher scrutiny, that the courts will be able to strike down any legislation that does meet the compelling state interest test. When you look at the language in 777 and compa

H/T to our friend Mark Thomas: The debate around 777 is a real case study to me. I have had people actually tell me that the language does not qualify our rights. Mark Yates, who is one of the original proponents of 777, told me that the use of the language " without a compelling state interest" places any legislation under higher scrutiny, that the courts will be able to strike down any legislation that does meet the compelling state interest test. When you look at the language in 777 and compare it to the language found in the second amendment of the US Constitution, this argument of the compelling state interest setting a "higher" level of scrutiny just doesn't fly. The language in the second amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed". The phrase "shall not' is an emphatic denial or refusal of the verb "be infringed". The test of high scrutiny gets no higher than that. The other argument is that the phrase compelling state interest doesn't qualify the ability of the legislature to act. Here is the language right of the ballot description of the question: no law can interfere with these rights, unless the law is justified by a compelling state interest—a clearly identified state interest of the highest order. Additionally, the law must be necessary to serve that compelling state interest. The Oklahoma State Attorney just said in it's explanation that your right could be interfered with, and told you just how it would happen, by justification of the compelling state interest, and yet supporters of 777 say it can't happen. Let that sink in a minute. So the whole debate is 777 won't qualify your rights, even though we know that the same concept of compelling state interest set out in 777 has already been proven to do that by the US Supreme Court, and the same is acknowledged by the Oklahoma Attorney General in it's ballot description of 777's intent. Tell me how that is rational because I can't see it.

from FB-RSS feed for Tapp Into Common Sense https://www.facebook.com/577803108906900/posts/1287852617901942