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 > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-19-2018, 12:16 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,441
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default People v. Green, 6/14/18 Illinois App. Ct: Strikes Ban on Guns Within 1000 ft School

Volokh again, People v Green
Quote:
...

Significantly, the supreme court rejected the relevance of this identical data in Chairez, stating "we see no direct correlation between the information the State provides and its assertion that a 1000-foot firearm ban around a public park protects children, as well as other vulnerable persons, from firearm violence. The State merely speculates that the proximity of firearms within 1000 feet threatens the health and safety of those in the public park." The State's arguments here are based on the same rationale rejected in Chairez.

To be sure, the data the State provides more directly relates to gun violence in schools, but the State still fails to show that the 1000-foot firearm ban mitigates that violence. The data does not reflect that the gun violence plaguing our schools was perpetrated within 1000 feet of the schools (as opposed to inside the schools themselves) or that the perpetrators of that violence were the law abiding adults whose conduct the statute regulates. Accordingly, the State has not shown a close fit between the restriction on gun possession within 1000 feet of a school and the protection of children. See id.

In arguing to the contrary, the State cites Heller, in which the Supreme Court stated that nothing in its opinion "should be taken to cast doubt on ... laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," which it described as "presumptively lawful." But the State conflates regulations banning the carriage of weapons in certain sensitive places (e.g., schools and government buildings) with [the law involved here], which bans carriage near those places. This distinction is significant. A ban on firearms in specific places imposes less of a burden on the right to bear arms than one that extends to an area of approximately three city blocks around those same places. While a gun owner can simply choose not to enter locations deemed sensitive, it is manifestly more difficult to avoid areas within 1000 feet of those locations, particularly given that there is no notification where the restriction zone begins or ends. Indeed, the ban at issue here, just as the ban 1000 feet around public parks at issue in Chairez, effectively operates as a total ban on the carriage of weapons for self-defense outside the home in Chicago. As such, it runs afoul of Aguilar, in which the supreme court held that the right to carry firearms is particularly important when traveling outside the home.

For these reasons, we conclude that [the statutes] prohibiting possession of a firearm within 1000 feet of a school are facially unconstitutional....
Same argument applies to CA and Federal 'Gun Free School Zones', but Illinois court opinion has no precedential value outside of Illinois.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-19-2018, 5:58 AM
Kokopelli's Avatar
Kokopelli Kokopelli is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: "the drop edge of yonder"
Posts: 2,358
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Volokh again, People v Green

Same argument applies to CA and Federal 'Gun Free School Zones', but Illinois court opinion has no precedential value outside of Illinois.
By this ruling, hasnít SCOTUS legislated from the bench? I would hope that a pro 2A layer could use this ruling in defending someone in CA.
__________________
ďIf we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.Ē - Ronald Reagan

"God is not on the side of the big battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best." - Voltaire
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-19-2018, 6:29 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,136
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Accordingly, the court applied "elevated intermediate scrutiny"


What about "double-secret, decoder-ring pinky-swear scrutiny"? It's listed on the back of the same cereal box as elevated intermediate scrutiny, but has a way cooler spirit animal
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-19-2018, 7:08 AM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,726
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokopelli View Post
By this ruling, hasnít SCOTUS legislated from the bench? I would hope that a pro 2A layer could use this ruling in defending someone in CA.
No, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has nothing to do with this decision. It's a decision of an intermediate, State of Illinois appellate court.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-20-2018, 12:15 AM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,504
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Inventing more fake 'scrutiny' to justify bad decisions.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-21-2018, 3:07 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 405
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
Inventing more fake 'scrutiny' to justify bad decisions.
Excuse me? What is "bad" about striking down the Illinois GFSZA to the extent it bans firearms outside of school campuses? Heck, I wish a California state or federal court would come to the same conclusion.

It won't happen, but I can dream....
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-23-2018, 7:33 AM
JDoe JDoe is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,835
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Excuse me? What is "bad" about striking down the Illinois GFSZA to the extent it bans firearms outside of school campuses? Heck, I wish a California state or federal court would come to the same conclusion.



It won't happen, but I can dream....


If a black robe can use invented on a whim fake scrutiny for us another black robe can use it against us.
__________________
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 4:14 PM.




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.