reasonable exercise test in Colorado

2020The division agreed instead with the analysis in Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, LLC v. Regents of the University of Colorado, 280 P.3d 18 (Colo. App. 2010), see RMGO I, ¶ 18 n.3, 371 P.3d at 772 n.3, which concluded that the reasonable exercise test is distinguishable from rational basis review and that Robertson expressly declined to address whether the article II, section 13 right is fundamental, Students for Concealed Carry, 280 P.3d at 26–29. ¶13 Having concluded that Robertson provided the applicable framework, the division determined that because the reasonable exercise test pre

2020The division agreed instead with the analysis in Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, LLC v. Regents of the University of Colorado, 280 P.3d 18 (Colo. App. 2010), see RMGO I, ¶ 18 n.3, 371 P.3d at 772 n.3, which concluded that the reasonable exercise test is distinguishable from rational basis review and that Robertson expressly declined to address whether the article II, section 13 right is fundamental, Students for Concealed Carry, 280 P.3d at 26–29. ¶13 Having concluded that Robertson provided the applicable framework, the division determined that because the reasonable exercise test pre

2016But that division's reading was based on the misperception that Robertson's "reasonable exercise of the police"power'" test was "essentially". the same as the "rational basis test." Id. at 757-58; see also Students for Con cealed Carry on Campus, L.L.C. v. Regents of the Univ. of Colo., 280 P.3d 18, 28 (Colo.App.2010) ("Ratlonal basis review and the reasonable exercise test are distinguishable."), aff'd, 2012 CO 17 , 271 P.3d 496 . .

2016But that division’s reading was based on the misperception that Robertson ’s "reasonable exercise of the police power" test was "essentially" the same as the "rational basis test." Id. at 757-58; see also Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, L.L.C. v. Regents of the Univ. of Colo. , 280 P.3d 18, 28 (Colo. App. 2010) ("Rational basis review and the reasonable exercise test are distinguishable."), aff’d , 2012 CO 17 . 4 Lower courts tend to subject restrictions on the Second Amendment right to bear arms only to intermediate (rather than strict) scrutiny.

2020RMGO I, ¶ 18, 371 P.3d at 772 (citing Robertson, 874 P.2d at 329 ). ¶52 Because we agree with the RMGO I division that the Trinen division misperceived our decision in Robertson as having “essentially” applied the “rational basis test” to the Denver ordinance, RMGO I, ¶ 18 n.3, 371 P.3d at 772 n.3 (quoting Trinen, 53 P.3d at 757 ), we take this opportunity to clarify the distinction between the reasonable exercise test and rational basis review. 2.

2016But that division’s reading was based on the misperception that Robertson ’s "reasonable exercise of the police power" test was "essentially" the same as the "rational basis test." Id. at 757-58; see also Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, L.L.C. v. Regents of the Univ. of Colo. , 280 P.3d 18, 28 (Colo. App. 2010) ("Rational basis review and the reasonable exercise test are distinguishable."), aff’d , 2012 CO 17 . 4 Lower courts tend to subject restrictions on the Second Amendment right to bear arms only to intermediate (rather than strict) scrutiny.

2020Cf. Heller, 554 U.S. at 628 n.27 (“If all that was 12We note that even under rational basis review, a more searching inquiry is called for where a law exhibits animus, Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 632 (1996), unsubstantiated fear, City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 448 (1985), or a “bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group,” U.S. Dep’t of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973). 32 required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrat

2020Cf. Heller, 554 U.S. at 628 n.27 (“If all that was 12We note that even under rational basis review, a more searching inquiry is called for where a law exhibits animus, Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 632 (1996), unsubstantiated fear, City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 448 (1985), or a “bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group,” U.S. Dep’t of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973). 32 required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrat

2020Cf. Heller, 554 U.S. at 628 n.27 (“If all that was 12We note that even under rational basis review, a more searching inquiry is called for where a law exhibits animus, Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 632 (1996), unsubstantiated fear, City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 448 (1985), or a “bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group,” U.S. Dep’t of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973). 32 required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrat

2010The reasonable exercise test "focuses on the balance of the interests at stake, rather than merely on whether any conceivable rationale exists under which the legislature may have concluded the law could promote the public welfare." Bleiler v. Chief, 155 N.H. 693 , 927 A.2d 1216, 1223 (2007) (quoting State v. Cole, 264 Wis.2d 520 , 665 N.W.2d 328, 338 (2003)) (applying reasonableness test, not strict seru-tiny, to substantive due process challenge to statute governing suspension and revocation of concealed carry licenses).

2010The reasonable exercise test "focuses on the balance of the interests at stake, rather than merely on whether any conceivable rationale exists under which the legislature may have concluded the law could promote the public welfare." Bleiler v. Chief, 155 N.H. 693 , 927 A.2d 1216, 1223 (2007) (quoting State v. Cole, 264 Wis.2d 520 , 665 N.W.2d 328, 338 (2003)) (applying reasonableness test, not strict seru-tiny, to substantive due process challenge to statute governing suspension and revocation of concealed carry licenses).

2010The reasonable exercise test "focuses on the balance of the interests at stake, rather than merely on whether any conceivable rationale exists under which the legislature may have concluded the law could promote the public welfare." Bleiler v. Chief, 155 N.H. 693 , 927 A.2d 1216, 1223 (2007) (quoting State v. Cole, 264 Wis.2d 520 , 665 N.W.2d 328, 338 (2003)) (applying reasonableness test, not strict seru-tiny, to substantive due process challenge to statute governing suspension and revocation of concealed carry licenses).

2010The reasonable exercise test "focuses on the balance of the interests at stake, rather than merely on whether any conceivable rationale exists under which the legislature may have concluded the law could promote the public welfare." Bleiler v. Chief, 155 N.H. 693 , 927 A.2d 1216, 1223 (2007) (quoting State v. Cole, 264 Wis.2d 520 , 665 N.W.2d 328, 338 (2003)) (applying reasonableness test, not strict seru-tiny, to substantive due process challenge to statute governing suspension and revocation of concealed carry licenses).