First, the proposed amendments leave courts with significant latitude to define the scope of the fundamental constitutional right to which the strict-scrutiny standard attaches. Focusing on the N.R.A.’s promise of an “iron wall” or “iron plating” for gun rights, my objective in this brief Essay is to consider the degree to which the N.R.A.’s proposal is or is not likely to have a significant impact in states that adopt it.

I take no position here on whether gun-control laws are typically desirable or undesirable. urging Iowa and other states to join the “elite group that provides the strongest possible protection for” gun rights, 11 lawmakers and citizens across the country may soon find themselves in the thick of a debate about the proposal’s merits. In March 2018, the Iowa General Assembly approved an amendment that follows the N.R.A.’s proposal 9 if lawmakers endorse the amendment again during their next session, Iowa voters will be asked to ratify or reject it. argues, “anti-gun judges and lawyers” have insisted that strict scrutiny is inappropriate for gun-rights claims, “because they know that without this gold standard of legal protection, gun-ban politicians are virtually unbound to pass any freedom-killing laws that infringe on your constitutional right to keep and bear arms.” 5īy overwhelming margins, voters in Alabama, 6 Louisiana, 7 and Missouri 8 have adopted the N.R.A.’s recommendation. similarly encouraged its members in Iowa and elsewhere to protect their gun rights with “iron plating” by ensuring that judges are constitutionally obliged to evaluate gun restrictions under “the highest standards of justification.” 3 As every law student knows, the strict-scrutiny standard of review sets a daunting path for a challenged law to travel, demanding that the legislation be “narrowly tailored” to achieve a “compelling” objective.

The executive director of the N.R.A.’s Institute for Legislative Action told Louisiana voters in 2012, for example, that a constitutional amendment necessitating strict scrutiny would provide “an iron wall around” their gun rights by protecting “them from anti-gun, activist judges.” 2 In January 2018, the N.R.A.

Frustrated with state and federal judges who have evaluated gun-control laws under lenient standards of review, 1 the National Rifle Association (“N.R.A.”) is urging states to declare in their constitutions that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental and that any state or local restraint on that right is invalid unless it satisfies strict scrutiny.

The n.c.a.a. under scrutiny