are still the “law-abiding, responsible citizens” entitled to full Second Amendment rights, because the construction regulations do not come close to implicating the core of their rights, intermediate scrutiny is appropriate. See id. (“the [City] must show at least that the statute directly advances a substantial governmental interest and that the measure is drawn to achieve that interest”). The City satisfies intermediate scrutiny if its “legislative conclusion was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence in the rec ord.” See Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. F.C.C., 520 U.S. 180, 211, 117 S.Ct. 1174, 137 L.Ed.2d 369 (1997). Substantial evidence is found not only in the form of hard data. See Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 555, 121 S.Ct. 2404, 150 L.Ed.2d 532 (2001) (<HOLDING>). The City fares better in justifying its
holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category holding that unconstitutional government action can only be challenged by a person directly affected it cannot be challenged by one invoicing the rights of third parties holding that common knowledge and common sense of one skilled in the art must be considered in determining obviousness holding that facially valid indictment may not be challenged on the ground that it is based on inadequate evidence holding that challenged ordinances can be justified based on history consensus and simple common sense