Jump to content

Moore/Shepard Ruling Announced


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

Posted - 11 Dec. 2012 10:40 a.m.

 

http://www.ca7.uscou...&submit=showdkt

 

Illinois ban on Right to Carry ruled unconstitutional!

 

We have a ruling from the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals - 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 as interpreted in

this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.

REVERSED AND REMANDED, WITH DIRECTIONS;

BUT MANDATE STAYED FOR 180 DAYS.

 

We win, the ban on carrying is unconstitutional!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

In sum, the empirical literature on the effects

of allowing the carriage of guns in public fails to establish

a pragmatic defense of the Illinois law.

 

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 as interpreted in

this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting I have not yet read it either. The concluding sentence may be somewhat telling of the trajectory of the opinion ...

 

In the absence of clearer indication that the Second Amendment codified a generally recognized right to carry arms in public for self-defense, I would leave this judgment in the hands of the State of Illinois.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court rejected the argument [collective right]. 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.

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 the individual right to possess and

Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788 5

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blackstone described the right of armed self-preservation

as a fundamental natural right of Englishmen, on

a par with seeking redress in the courts or petitioning

the government. 1 Blackstone, supra, at 136,

139–40. The Court in Heller inferred from this that

eighteenth-century English law recognized a right

to possess guns for resistance, self-preservation, self-defense,

and protection against both public and

private violence. 554 U.S. at 594. The Court said that

American law was the same. Id. at 594–95. And in

contrast to the situation in England, in less peaceable

America a distinction between keeping arms for self-defense

in the home and carrying them outside the home

would, as we said, have been irrational. All this is debatable

of course, but we are bound by the Supreme

Court’s historical analysis because it was central

to the Court’s holding in Heller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope no one minds me posting what I consider are seminal passages from this ruling ...

 

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heck YES RIGHT TO CARRY HERE WE COME!

 

This ruling is better than I could have ever hoped for.

 

Hopefully GOOD legislation like HB148 can be passed ASAP. I bet the Chicago-Anti Gun Pol's are wetting themselves right now. I will be first in line for a CC Permit once the requirments are hammered out.Ordering a P226 holster today; going out to buy a P239 tomorrow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Should we be calling our reps and demanding they pass HB148 yet?
Edited by Patriots & Tyrants
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My country tis of thee,

Sweet land of liberty,

Of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died!

Land of the Pilgrim's pride!

From every mountain side,

Let freedom ring!

 

My native country, thee,

Land of the noble free,

Thy name I love.

I love thy rocks and rills,

Thy woods and templed hills;

My heart with rapture fills

Like that above.

 

Let music swell the breeze,

And ring from all the trees

Sweet freedom's song.

Let mortal tongues awake;

Let all that breathe partake;

Let rocks their silence break,

The sound prolong.

 

Our father's God to, Thee,

Author of liberty,

To Thee we sing.

Long may our land be bright

With freedom's holy light;

Protect us by Thy might,

Great God, our King!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My country tis of thee,

Sweet land of liberty,

Of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died!

Land of the Pilgrim's pride!

From every mountain side,

Let freedom ring!

 

My native country, thee,

Land of the noble free,

Thy name I love.

I love thy rocks and rills,

Thy woods and templed hills;

My heart with rapture fills

Like that above.

 

Let music swell the breeze,

And ring from all the trees

Sweet freedom's song.

Let mortal tongues awake;

Let all that breathe partake;

Let rocks their silence break,

The sound prolong.

 

Our father's God to, Thee,

Author of liberty,

To Thee we sing.

Long may our land be bright

With freedom's holy light;

Protect us by Thy might,

Great God, our King!

 

there's the thread winner right there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way it's worded, I'm hoping we can fight off restrictions on "special locations".

I wish we could do away with such locations, unless under direct police guard with controlled monitored (metal detectors, etc...) entrances, such as court houses, but I think we'll have to give ground on this one. That doesn't mean we won't make that ground back up in a year or two when the streets stop running red with blood. (as they already are running red with blood because of the unarmed public)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way it's worded, I'm hoping we can fight off restrictions on "special locations".

 

Yes, by calling out Chicago specifically, it puts paid to may issue, I think.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as the final law doesn't end up looking like New York's (which was cited by both majority and dissenting opinions), I will be happy. If I have to pay $100-200 for an 8-hour class and a background check, I will be happy. If I have to somehow prove to someone (local sheriff) that I "need" to carry, because of an actual credible threat, I'll be very disappointed. I'm guessing the only time there will be a credible and verifiable threat to my life is when it's standing in front of me. It's just as likely to be a wild animal as it is a person!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...