The unlikely lineup of Breyer, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan conclude there’s no rational basis for hassling law-abiding gun owners, who commit very few crimes, just because criminals exist:
But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected [criminal] behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations.
(via National Review).
But not quite. They were talking about laws regulating abortion, not guns. And they delved deep in to the factual weeds, considering the rate of complications, the need for access to full-blown hospitals (rather than just abortion clinics) and concluded that the law in question provides “few, if any, health benefits.”
So in other words, when the issue is abortion, the Supreme Court thinks it’s necessary for a state legislature to prove that any restriction solves a real problem and provides real benefits–and if it closes down too many abortion clinics, then it’s imposing an “undue burden” and is unconstitutional. I don’t recall this analysis in the dissent from Heller.
You had best believe I will be finding a way to work this reasoning into the (inevitable) appeal briefing in my lawsuit.