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.
|
Just read some of it... looks like a loss...
... ... ... ... FOR ILLINOIS!!! HAHAHA. SUCK IT! |
Quote:
Looks like a victory to me. |
Code:
Both Heller and McDonald do say that “the need |
Quote:
|
Code:
Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. |
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.
|
You should clarify that you were reading the dissent :)
|
Code:
In any event the court in |
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.
|
Anyone have a link to the decision? The CA7 website confuses me.
|
DP.
|
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). |
Quote:
|
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
|
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. |
YES. A citable decision for all pending carry cases. And just in time for Christmas!
|
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:
Quote:
Nonetheless, seems like a victory to me, and victory == Good Thing |
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
That’s always possible, but those nine wise men and women probably don’t just want to watch things burn. ;)
|
Yes! Big win.
Kind of nice having a state with moronic gun laws serve as a petri dish for 2A cases. |
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. |
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.
|
OK, it finally came up:
Quote:
Erik. |
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!
|
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.
|
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
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.
|
Not a lawyer, but didn't this just create a circuit split with the recent Kachalsky case decision?
|
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? |
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:
I think this may equate to Heller's level of scrutiny. |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
|
|
So this was another SAF/NRA joint case? (NRA-ILA?)
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.