It doesn't say "strictest scrutiny" it says "strict scrutiny" and that's not undefined. Compelling interest, narrowly tailored, least restrictive means (sometimes considered part of narrowly tailored) - these make up strict scrutiny the way cheese and a hamburger patty in a bun make a cheeseburger. Strict scrutiny isn't impossible, just difficult, at least in relation to rational basis. She's right in that it could be a foothold for AZ style permit-less concealed carry, but the trip from that foothold is quite a jump. Even back in 1850 when LASC recognized OC for inspiring "manly and noble" defense, they were okay with forbidding concealed carry and its tendency for "secret assassinations." There's a list of RKBA limits that I'd look to challenge under the new laws; that one is a ways down there.
The great news is, courtesy of Moreno's failed amendment, the legislative history is rather clear on the new standard being applicable to existing laws. Which I must say was my biggest fear - that current laws would escape review because they happened to be on the books at the time it was passed. With that handled I've no complaints about SB 303. There are a few things I wish were nicer, yes, but I'm not going to turn my nose up at an upgrade because it doesn't go as far as I'd like - not when it doesn't cost us anything.
I've had time to rethink the necessity of the "weapons concealed on the person" language. Under our current provision we're running rational basis with possibly less deference (that is, a harder look at whether the means actually helps the end) on off-person and OC. Blanchard wasn't just a concealed weapons case. Losing the preferential treatment of certain methods of carry isn't really a problem when the generic standard is higher than the old preferred one. Yes, a court could screw it up, but they could (and did) already screw it up, and they'd have to go further out of their way to screw it up under SB 303. This way any reasonable judges give us a better shot.
Having seen the blank check on "concealed" amendment fail 7-7
with one of the 7 needing a moment to think about it I retract my earlier statement regarding low hanging fruit. Those of you who've studied our constitutional definition of "concealed" (not to be confused with the statutory definition of "intentionally concealed") as according to LASC know how catastrophic that would've been. I conclude that the fruit may well have been out of reach; Senator Riser and the NRA got as much through that committee as they safely could, if not more. No, they didn't get an absolute right, and no, they didn't get OC and car/plane/cashier guns preference (though they also didn't expressly repeal that preference
), but they gave us an improvement over current jurisprudence without giving anything up. If they can get that bill onto the ballot as is I'm voting for it and asking everyone I know to do the same.
It's only a compromise if both sides give up something, and we're not giving anything up here. Legislative history (what georg called "author intent") already killed our current provision as an absolute right - even when it started, New Orleans was permitted to register firearms, and short barrels and automatics were not included. Our current provision was doing a lousy job; this one does better. Not as well as I or many members of this forum would write it, but
better and there's nothing to stop us from trying to further upgrade it later.