Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:12 AM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,168
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default 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.
__________________

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, but let me remind you also that moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue" -Barry Goldwater

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” -Gerald Ford

Quote:
Originally Posted by cudakidd View Post
I want Blood for Oil. Heck I want Blood for Oil over hand wringing sentiment!
^

Last edited by Librarian; 12-12-2012 at 2:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:16 AM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,168
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

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

...

...
...


...



FOR ILLINOIS!!! HAHAHA. SUCK IT!

Last edited by safewaysecurity; 12-11-2012 at 1:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:18 AM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,179
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:23 AM
CalBear's Avatar
CalBear CalBear is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:26 AM
CalBear's Avatar
CalBear CalBear is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:25 AM
Whiskey_Sauer's Avatar
Whiskey_Sauer Whiskey_Sauer is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Northern California
Posts: 1,097
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by safewaysecurity View Post
Just read some of it... looks like a loss...
Most definitely not.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-11-2012, 12:54 PM
uyoga's Avatar
uyoga uyoga is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 680
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by safewaysecurity View Post
Just read some of it... looks like a loss...

Yeah . . . . a loss to Illinois.
__________________
Non verbis sed operis
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:00 PM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,168
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by uyoga View Post
Yeah . . . . a loss to Illinois.
Edited my post
__________________

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, but let me remind you also that moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue" -Barry Goldwater

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” -Gerald Ford

Quote:
Originally Posted by cudakidd View Post
I want Blood for Oil. Heck I want Blood for Oil over hand wringing sentiment!
^
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:29 AM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,168
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:32 AM
CalBear's Avatar
CalBear CalBear is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:36 AM
CalBear's Avatar
CalBear CalBear is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-11-2012, 10:35 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,580
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalBear View Post
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?
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-11-2012, 10:41 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,701
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In before Brady Campaign claims this was a victory for their cause.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/ne...amendment.aspx
__________________



Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:43 AM
mdimeo mdimeo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 613
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.

Last edited by mdimeo; 12-11-2012 at 9:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:47 AM
rplusplus's Avatar
rplusplus rplusplus is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baghdad West
Posts: 2,184
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdimeo View Post
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...
__________________
US Navy Retired 1987-2007

Happy Days
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-11-2012, 10:29 AM
Mitch's Avatar
Mitch Mitch is offline
Mostly Harmless
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Reno
Posts: 6,562
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdimeo View Post
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Getting called a DOJ shill has become a rite of passage around here. I've certainly been called that more than once - I've even seen Kes get called that. I haven't seen Red-O get called that yet, which is very suspicious to me, and means he's probably a DOJ shill.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-11-2012, 12:53 PM
LYU370 LYU370 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdimeo View Post

Illinois, unfortunately, is going to respond with an extremely restrictive may-issue law, and round-and-round it'll go.
Not necessarily, I think we've got the anti's pissing their pants:

"The (Illinois) legislature, in the new session, will be forced to take up a statewide carry law," said NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde.

The lobbyist said prior attempts to reach a middle ground with opponents will no longer be necessary because "those compromises are going out the window."

And Rep. Phelps, who has pepeatedly introduced bills:

Phelps fought unsuccessfully in the House to pass concealed weapons legislation with a long set of restrictions, but he warned opponents of his legislation may regret they had not supported it when they had a chance. Now, he said, he “can’t see us” going forward with legislation that has as many restrictions as the bill that failed.

We'll see what happens, but I'm guessing we get a pretty good carry bill.

Andy
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:18 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 4,751
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdimeo View Post
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.
EXACTLY. The court gave the legislature 180 days and essentially said "re-write this thing so as to pass constitutional muster" So they will, and thus will end the chapter. Once you get around the per se ban, and impose ludicrous limits and hoops to jump through, no court will second guess the regulation. You are NEVER going to see "shall issue" in Ill. or NY or CA. Period.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:29 PM
advocatusdiaboli's Avatar
advocatusdiaboli advocatusdiaboli is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rural Central California
Posts: 5,321
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djandj View Post
EXACTLY. The court gave the legislature 180 days and essentially said "re-write this thing so as to pass constitutional muster" So they will, and thus will end the chapter. Once you get around the per se ban, and impose ludicrous limits and hoops to jump through, no court will second guess the regulation. You are NEVER going to see "shall issue" in Ill. or NY or CA. Period.
I think your are correct and, as much as I detest that reality, we need to deal with it.
__________________
Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran


Not wasting any more time and energy tilting, Don Quixote-like, on a regulatory problem that, constitutionally, should not even exist in a free state.
I cannot change the world unlike my hero Samuel Adams—but I can change my place in it.
Gone fishin' for now and soon gone from California.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:39 PM
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,485
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Something tells me that Grey Peterson and some of the CGF members may very well win their bets with those steak dinners pretty soon.
Those are going to be tasty steaks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djandj View Post
EXACTLY. The court gave the legislature 180 days and essentially said "re-write this thing so as to pass constitutional muster" So they will, and thus will end the chapter. Once you get around the per se ban, and impose ludicrous limits and hoops to jump through, no court will second guess the regulation. You are NEVER going to see "shall issue" in Ill. or NY or CA. Period.
Wanna bet a steak? See, the problem here is that you would have bet me that no carry law would be struck, yet here we are.

The minimum constitutional standard for "bear arms" will be the ability to carry a loaded handgun most places after meeting objective licensing standards and in the manner that the legislature requires. That's the minimum and it will include Madison Ave, Manhattan, NY.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:42 PM
pointedstick's Avatar
pointedstick pointedstick is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 566
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djandj View Post
EXACTLY. The court gave the legislature 180 days and essentially said "re-write this thing so as to pass constitutional muster" So they will, and thus will end the chapter. Once you get around the per se ban, and impose ludicrous limits and hoops to jump through, no court will second guess the regulation. You are NEVER going to see "shall issue" in Ill. or NY or CA. Period.
I don't believe that's true. Pro-gun forces have a majority in the Illinois legislature. They're short of the supermajority needed to override the anti-gun governor, but with this ruling, they don't need a supermajority. They don't even need to vote at all! If they simply stonewall for 6 months, IL goes constitutional carry. Let it sink in a bit. That possibility is so terrifying to the anti-gun governor and Chicago legislators that if they have any shred of sense, they will beat a path to the pro-gun legislators' doors in a frantic effort to pass anything at all short of constitutional carry to prevent the court's ruling from taking effect.

Prior to this ruling, IL anti-gun forces won the waiting game. Now we do. It's a game-changer. They now have to beg us to support something they hate in order to prevent being utterly crushed by the court. That gives us power. We can now demand other concessions, too. Perhaps they would be willing to get rid of the FOID card rather than allow constitutional carry. See? We have leverage!

Last edited by pointedstick; 12-11-2012 at 1:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-11-2012, 1:55 PM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,168
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djandj View Post
EXACTLY. The court gave the legislature 180 days and essentially said "re-write this thing so as to pass constitutional muster" So they will, and thus will end the chapter. Once you get around the per se ban, and impose ludicrous limits and hoops to jump through, no court will second guess the regulation. You are NEVER going to see "shall issue" in Ill. or NY or CA. Period.
We won't see shall-issue in Illinois? The state where they were 2-3 votes shy of a super majority to pass shall-issue very recently? Where the NRA has already said they have the votes for Shall-Issue. Here's my prediction and you can take it to the Bank. Illinois goes Shall-Issue before California, New York, Massachusetts, D.C, New Jersey, and Hawaii.
__________________

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, but let me remind you also that moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue" -Barry Goldwater

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” -Gerald Ford

Quote:
Originally Posted by cudakidd View Post
I want Blood for Oil. Heck I want Blood for Oil over hand wringing sentiment!
^
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:31 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,776
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

You should clarify that you were reading the dissent
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:37 AM
zhyla's Avatar
zhyla zhyla is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,660
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Anyone have a link to the decision? The CA7 website confuses me.
__________________
compromise•conformity•assimilation•submission•igno rance•hypocrisy•brutality•the elite
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:39 AM
CalBear's Avatar
CalBear CalBear is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhyla View Post
Anyone have a link to the decision? The CA7 website confuses me.
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...submit=showdkt
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:37 AM
RMP91's Avatar
RMP91 RMP91 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 3,660
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

DP.
__________________
Do what all great men would do: Tuck your head between your legs and kiss your *** goodbye. -Jake71

There's lots of players on the team. Not everyone gets to play "Quarterback". -CEDaytonaRydr
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:37 AM
RMP91's Avatar
RMP91 RMP91 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 3,660
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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).
__________________
Do what all great men would do: Tuck your head between your legs and kiss your *** goodbye. -Jake71

There's lots of players on the team. Not everyone gets to play "Quarterback". -CEDaytonaRydr
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:50 AM
mdimeo mdimeo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 613
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMP91 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:39 AM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,168
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:43 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,891
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:48 AM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,179
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:52 AM
mdimeo mdimeo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 613
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-11-2012, 10:04 AM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,179
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

That’s always possible, but those nine wise men and women probably don’t just want to watch things burn.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-11-2012, 10:10 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,691
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-11-2012, 9:45 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,084
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-11-2012, 10:08 AM
hornswaggled's Avatar
hornswaggled hornswaggled is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,652
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Yes! Big win.

Kind of nice having a state with moronic gun laws serve as a petri dish for 2A cases.
__________________
NRA Endowment Member
SAF Defender's Club
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-11-2012, 10:13 AM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,168
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-11-2012, 10:15 AM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ (The United States of America)
Posts: 3,540
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Exclamation

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.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-11-2012, 10:19 AM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

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!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-11-2012, 12:55 PM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,514
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonshine View Post
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!
It can be cited as authoritative precedent in the 7th District.

It can be cited as "FYI" outside the District. Meaning it doesn't control the other district, but may influence it's reasoning somewhat. And also clue other districts that if they directly contradict, they're setting the stage for a Supreme Court battle to decide who's right.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:41 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.