Well, Justice Breyer tried to do a little number.
His suggestion is that the Court should apply an "interest-balancing" standard of review in determining the Constitutionality of firearms restrictions.
He equates such a standard with the way the "strict scrutiny" standard is often applied, except that, throughout his analysis, he gives all deference to the statute (and the state's interest) instead of the right it infringes (instead of the interests of the right-holder).
He says of less-restrictive alternatives, "Here I see none." He says this, not because none were shown, but because none were asked for. Despite his insistence that "policy" judgments are better made by legislators, he goes on to determine that no alternatives exist short of complete bans. And to support this,... wait for it... he shows that other cities have instituted complete bans.
I'll leave you with a sentence I think is particularly indicative of Breyer's nanny-state mentality:
"If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence."
Breyer apparently likes the idea of abolishing the presumption of innocence, as well.
“Could sports-betting ruling invalidate US death penalty law?” - “Could sports-betting ruling invalidate US death penalty law?” Wilson Ring of The Associated Press has this report.
11 hours ago