Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=71)
-   -   MOORE V MADIGAN DECISION (IL, 7th Circuit, Dec 2012) (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=655147)

safewaysecurity 12-11-2012 9:12 AM

MOORE V MADIGAN DECISION (IL, 7th Circuit, Dec 2012)
 
Looks like I'm first with the news. Just check CA7 website and the decision is out!! On my phone but thought I should update.

safewaysecurity 12-11-2012 9:16 AM

Just read some of it... looks like a loss...

...

...
...


...



FOR ILLINOIS!!! HAHAHA. SUCK IT!

M. D. Van Norman 12-11-2012 9:18 AM

Quote:

The theoretical and empirical evidence … is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense. Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified.… It has failed to meet this burden. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand … them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions. Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment.…
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/moo...2012-12-11.pdf

Looks like a victory to me.

CalBear 12-11-2012 9:23 AM

Code:

Both Heller and McDonald do say that “the need
for defense of self, family, and property is most acute”
in the home, id. at 3036 (emphasis added); 554 U.S. at
628, but that doesn’t mean it is not acute outside the home.
Heller repeatedly invokes a broader Second
Amendment right than the right to have a gun in
one’s home, as when it says that the amendment
“guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and
carry weapons in case of confrontation.” 554 U.S. at 592.
Confrontations are not limited to the home.

The Second Amendment states in its entirety that “a
well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (emphasis added).
The right to “bear” as distinct from the right to “keep”
arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of “bearing”
arms within one’s home would at all times have been
an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies
a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.


Whiskey_Sauer 12-11-2012 9:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by safewaysecurity (Post 9895001)
Just read some of it... looks like a loss...

Most definitely not.

CalBear 12-11-2012 9:26 AM

Code:

Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians.
But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be
attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in
his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower
.
A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a
protective order against a violent ex-husband is more
vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from
her home than when inside
. She has a stronger self-defense
claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than
the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with
doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under
her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim,
while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter.
That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine
the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second
Amendment from the right of self-defense described
in Heller and McDonald
. It is not a property right—a right
to kill a houseguest who in a fit of aesthetic fury tries
to slash your copy of Norman Rockwell’s painting
Santa with Elves. That is not self-defense, and this case
like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense.
A gun is a potential danger to more people if carried

Yes!

safewaysecurity 12-11-2012 9:29 AM

Oh woopsy bad. Pay no attention to my initial analysis that was based on reading a little a bit of the first and last few sentences. When I saw that they said they left the decision with illinois I thought all hope was lost.

curtisfong 12-11-2012 9:31 AM

You should clarify that you were reading the dissent :)

CalBear 12-11-2012 9:32 AM

Code:

In any event the court in
Kachalsky used the distinction between self-protection
inside and outside the home mainly to suggest that a
standard less demanding than “strict scrutiny” should
govern the constitutionality of laws limiting the carrying
of guns outside the home; our analysis is not
based on degrees of scrutiny, but on Illinois’s failure to
justify the most restrictive gun law of any of the 50 states.


CalBear 12-11-2012 9:36 AM

It looks like a smack down to me. They followed Heller and actually minded the portions about self-defense and noted that a right most acutely applying to the home doesn't mean it doesn't apply outside the home.

zhyla 12-11-2012 9:37 AM

Anyone have a link to the decision? The CA7 website confuses me.

RMP91 12-11-2012 9:37 AM

DP.

RMP91 12-11-2012 9:37 AM

A win?! Against CHICAGO no less?!

There was probably a magic mushroom or two in that omelette I had for breakfast this morning!

(PS: I'm joking, but seriously, I'm surprised).

CalBear 12-11-2012 9:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zhyla (Post 9895161)
Anyone have a link to the decision? The CA7 website confuses me.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...submit=showdkt

safewaysecurity 12-11-2012 9:39 AM

They seemed to have framed it in a way so that the case only applies to Illinois and doesn't cause a circuit split. But the language of the decision seems to indicate otherwise

mdimeo 12-11-2012 9:43 AM

Clear win.

Illinois, unfortunately, is going to respond with an extremely restrictive may-issue law, and round-and-round it'll go.

Seems like not enough of a split against Kachalsky or Masciandaro to force supreme court review.

ETA: kalchasky/masciandaro summary is on page 17-19. Main holding P.20-21. Dissent starts on 21. I mostly skimmed
before about 15, but it's basically heller-style historical analysis, as is the dissent.

Maestro Pistolero 12-11-2012 9:43 AM

YES. A citable decision for all pending carry cases. And just in time for Christmas!

speedrrracer 12-11-2012 9:45 AM

The Legally Ignorant want to know:

Does this mean strict scrutiny is up a creek without a paddle?

For some reason I have this hierarchy stuck in my head: rational basis on the bottom, intermediate scrutiny in the middle, and strict on top. The quotes:

Quote:

Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis...
and

Quote:

...our analysis is not
based on degrees of scrutiny...
suggest to my uninformed brain that strict scrutiny is getting no love.

Nonetheless, seems like a victory to me, and victory == Good Thing

rplusplus 12-11-2012 9:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdimeo (Post 9895200)
Clear win.

Illinois, unfortunately, is going to respond with an extremely restrictive may-issue law, and round-and-round it'll go.

That is kind of what I read into it. It appears as if the court gave the state and incomplete and said go rewrite your law and if it isn't as restrictive will let you be like the State of New York and just deny permits except for those who can line the Senior LEO / Legislatures pockets...

M. D. Van Norman 12-11-2012 9:48 AM

It may indeed be a split in that this court has ruled the right exists outside the home. A loss on appeal in one of the other circuits will be based on the only-in-the-home nonsense.

mdimeo 12-11-2012 9:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RMP91 (Post 9895163)
A win?! Against CHICAGO no less?!

Generally, the worse the law, the easier the win should be, which is why we had heller in DC and mcdonald in Chicago.

I don't think we've had circuit-level wins on less-than-complete bans yet.

Pulling in the other direction is the fact that the worst laws tend to be in places with unfriendly judges, too.

CalBear 12-11-2012 9:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedrrracer (Post 9895220)
The Legally Ignorant want to know:

Does this mean strict scrutiny is up a creek without a paddle?

Courts generally take the easiest route to a decision. If it's obvious to the court that self defense applies outside the home and the state offered little to no justification for a law barring individuals from carrying outside the home, then the court doesn't even need scrutiny to laugh at the state and toss out the law.

mdimeo 12-11-2012 9:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman (Post 9895242)
It may indeed be a split in that this court has ruled the right exists outside the home. A loss on appeal in one of the other circuits will be based on the only-in-the-home nonsense.

Oh, there's a split there. I just don't think it's glaring enough (yet) to force supreme court review if they don't feel like going there.

M. D. Van Norman 12-11-2012 10:04 AM

That’s always possible, but those nine wise men and women probably don’t just want to watch things burn. ;)

hornswaggled 12-11-2012 10:08 AM

Yes! Big win.

Kind of nice having a state with moronic gun laws serve as a petri dish for 2A cases.

CCWFacts 12-11-2012 10:10 AM

From my limited understanding, the court said, "you have a right to carry, but rather than going Vermont-carry right now, we'll give the Illinois legislature 180 days to come up with an orderly way to have shall-issue LTCs". Is that right?

If so that's a major victory for Chicago, which clearly needs it. It will lower crime on the streets and give Illinois Democratic senators a way to avoid going to prison for carrying guns.

And a circuit split will be lovely.

safewaysecurity 12-11-2012 10:13 AM

It certainly has shall issue language I there talking about how merely walking the streets hou have more reason for being ready in case of confrontation than you do in you home on the 37th floor.

Window_Seat 12-11-2012 10:15 AM

OK, it finally came up:

Quote:

The Supreme Court rejected the argument. The
appellees ask us to repudiate the Court’s historical analysis.
That we can’t do. Nor can we ignore the implication
of the analysis that the constitutional right of armed selfdefense
is broader than the right to have a gun
in one’s home. The first sentence of the McDonald
opinion states that “two years ago, in District of
Columbia v. Heller, we held that the Second Amendment
protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose
of self-defense,” McDonald v. City of Chicago, supra, 130 S.
Ct. at 3026, and later in the opinion we read
that “Heller explored the right’s origins, noting that the
1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right
to keep arms for self-defense, 554 U.S. at 593, and that
by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right
to keep and bear arms was ‘one of the fundamental rights
of Englishmen,’ id. at 594.” 130 S. Ct. at 3037. And immediately
the Court adds that “Blackstone’s assessment
was shared by the American colonists.” Id.
Just an except of 47 pages above.

Erik.

Moonshine 12-11-2012 10:19 AM

Is this decision possible to be cited in California counties or is the scope limited to Illinois state? My initial impression was this could only be cited in Illinois... Huge victory tho and really shows the impact of the Heller decision!

Kharn 12-11-2012 10:20 AM

Decent ruling, SAF already has a foot in the door with the two courts so they can argue anything but affordable shall-issue is unacceptable.

Window_Seat 12-11-2012 10:21 AM

The judgement of the District Court is reversed and remanded with instructions consistent with this ruling, but the decision is stayed for 180 days.

Williams dissented.

Erik.

Mitch 12-11-2012 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdimeo (Post 9895200)
Clear win.

Illinois, unfortunately, is going to respond with an extremely restrictive may-issue law, and round-and-round it'll go.

Maybe not. This might be what is required for the Illinois legislature to pass shall issue. Cf: Despite heated opposition, Illinois seems poised to legalize concealed carry

Quote:

Originally Posted by Medill Reports
According to the spokesperson for Illinois Carry, Valinda Rowe, “in talking to the legislators, they’re wanting to see how the courts rule on two lawsuits.”

These lawsuits are Shepard vs. Madigan and Moore vs. Madigan, with Madigan being Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who represents the state. The plaintiffs in both of these cases allege that Illinois’ ban on carrying firearms in public is a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Ironically, Illinois might get shall issue before California does.

hornswaggled 12-11-2012 10:30 AM

Sooo without jumping the gun, does this have bearing on the cases in the 9th? Also don't want to give up our game plan to the enemy.

stix213 12-11-2012 10:31 AM

Not a lawyer, but didn't this just create a circuit split with the recent Kachalsky case decision?

pbreed 12-11-2012 10:32 AM

How does this work in practice... 180 day stay...
If one carries concealed in Il and gets busted by the cops, what are they going to charge them with? A law already declared unconstitutional?

In effect doesn't this grant residents of Il Vermont style CCW until whatever new law is passed in 180 days? Not sure how you declare something unconstitutional and then prosecute someone under the statute?

Thoughts?

FrankW438 12-11-2012 10:34 AM

Last year, we were about 3 votes short of having a SUPERMAJORITY to pass a shall-issue carry law with full pre-emption of local laws. I think we can rally enough votes to defeat and watered-down may-issue law.

As to level of scrutiny, we may get a few hints here:

Quote:

The Supreme
Court has decided that the amendment confers
a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as
important outside the home as inside.

I think this may equate to Heller's level of scrutiny.

Untamed1972 12-11-2012 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalBear (Post 9895152)
It looks like a smack down to me. They followed Heller and actually minded the portions about self-defense and noted that a right most acutely applying to the home doesn't mean it doesn't apply outside the home.

Just reading the quoted passages so far.....I would agree.....a total smack down!

And I applaud the judges for finally having some judicial and intellectual integrity to give the Heller & McD the weight they deserve!

Listen up CA......your time is coming! Do you see the handwriting on the wall yet?

FrankW438 12-11-2012 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbreed (Post 9895597)
How does this work in practice... 180 day stay...
If one carries concealed in Il and gets busted by the cops, what are they going to charge them with? A law already declared unconstitutional?

In effect doesn't this grant residents of Il Vermont style CCW until whatever new law is passed in 180 days? Not sure how you declare something unconstitutional and then prosecute someone under the statute?

Thoughts?

I don't think so. The Unlawful Use of Weapons statute still stands. If the state doesn't amend the law to allow for lawful Right-To-Carry,then it will be unconstitutional.

gemoose23 12-11-2012 10:37 AM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7034171.story

Coded-Dude 12-11-2012 10:39 AM

So this was another SAF/NRA joint case? (NRA-ILA?)


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.