Moore vs IL Attorney General

[Sigma]

Found that Second Amendment protections in Heller only applied to "hearth and home" and not to carry outside of the home.

 

 

so tired of hearing that

[mauserme]

UPDATE: I have quickly scanned through Judge Seibel's opinion. She made the following points:

The court had subject matter jurisdiction and the case was ripe. By denying them permits, the State of New York had injured the plaintiffs.

Found that the Second Amendment Foundation did not have standing as an organizational plaintiff.

Said none of the abstention doctrines pushed by New York applied in this case.

Found that Second Amendment protections in Heller only applied to "hearth and home" and not to carry outside of the home.

Says New York's proper cause requirement meets the standard set forth in Heller.

Argument about hunting "unavailing" as "as hunting does not involve handguns and therefore falls

outside the ambit of the challenged statute."

Says intermediate scrutiny applies here and that NY Penal Code 400.00(2)(f) is related to a important governmental interest.

Says equal protection claim fails as the statute "does not treat similarly situated individuals differently, but rather applies uniformly."

UPDATE II: As Gray Peterson and Gene Hoffman reminded me by Twitter, Alan Gura lost both what was then Parker v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago at the District Court level as well as more recently Dearth v. Holder and Ezell v. Chicago. All four of those cases eventually became wins at the appellate level.

 

http://onlygunsandmo...oliticians.html

The Appelate Court in Ezell said the SAF does have standing and found that possession and use away from one's home (in a range) enjoys a level of scrutiny higher than intermediate, if not quite strict. Ezell is binding on Moore and Shepard. The State is grasping at straws.

[Federal Farmer]

Keep in mind the following:

 

"Alan Gura lost both what was then Parker v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago at the District Court level as well as more recently Dearth v. Holder and Ezell v. Chicago. All four of those cases eventually became wins at the appellate level."

 

McDonald was a win at the appellate level...for Chicago.

[NakPPI]

While the NY case is bad for the country, much like the Peruta case from California, this NY case is good for us...

 

Plaintiffs also point to various nineteenth-century state court cases that they claim

demonstrate that state concealed carry bans are constitutional only where the state provides for

unconcealed, or open, carry as well. (Pls.’ Mem. at 10–11.) Those cases’ holdings, however,

seem not to be premised on the existence of open carry provisions specifically, but rather on the

existence of provisions for some other means of carry generally; in other words, they suggest that

such statutes would fail to pass muster only if functioning as complete bans to carrying weapons

outside the home under any circumstances. See, e.g., State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 1840 WL 229, at

*3 (1840) (regulation that amounted to total ban, i.e., “destruction of the right,” would be

“clearly unconstitutional”); Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 1846 WL 1167, at *5 (1846) (concealed

weapons ban valid so long as it does not impair right to bear arms “altogether”); Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 1871 WL 3579, at *11 (1871) (statute that forbade carrying “without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” violated the state right to keep and bear arms); see also

Peruta, 758 F. Supp. 2d at 1114 (“The Heller Court relied on 19th-century cases upholding

concealed weapons bans, but in each case, the court upheld the ban because alternative forms of

carrying arms were available.”).

25

Neither the NYPL generally, nor Section 400.00(2)(f)

specifically, completely bans the carrying of firearms. As discussed above, the statute provides

for carry permits to be issued under several circumstances including, but not limited to, when an

applicant can demonstrate proper cause. As the statute does not operate as a complete ban, the

cases are inapposite.

 

The NY case is addressing whether REGULATION is constitutional, not whether PROHIBITION is constitutional.

[lockman]

While the NY case is bad for the country, much like the Peruta case from California, this NY case is good for us...

 

 

The NY case is addressing whether REGULATION is constitutional, not whether PROHIBITION is constitutional.

 

Does the trial court not understand that the question is not the states power to regulate in the absence of a complete ban, but the level of scrutiny to sustain such regulation. The trial courts (and a split of the appelate courts) have consistently churned out decisions using the Pre-Heller/McDonald rulings.

[colt-45]

boy some one is really thinking outside the box. i just don't see how NEW YORK ruling has any thing to do with our case. and what angle they are trying to use. i'm lost

[Ocellairs]

boy some one is really thinking outside the box. i just don't see how NEW YORK ruling has any thing to do with our case. and what angle they are trying to use. i'm lost

 

It would seem the other side has resorted to discombobulating.

[Drylok]

I think this is evidence that the defandents are some smooth trick ponies when it comes to stalling techniques in the judicial process but either don't have the foggiest or are in complete denial when it comes to the actual matter at hand that is our 2nd amendment rights.

[stm]

I just finished reading the Kachalsky ruling, and I have to admit it left me scratching my head. The judge relies heavily on Peruta, saying that strictly regulating concealed carry is okay as long as open carry is allowed. Then the judge states that because the plaintiffs didn't challenge the prohibitions on open carry, the concealed carry law is still constitutional. The judge goes on to reason that open carry is dangerous, so it should be prohibited anyway.

 

It's like she WANTS to have her ruling overturned.

 

In any case, it helps us because the ruling states that regulation is permissible, not prohibition.

[mstrat]

Found that Second Amendment protections in Heller only applied to "hearth and home" and not to carry outside of the home.

 

 

so tired of hearing that

 

No matter how many times I've seen it, no matter how much time has past, it always makes my blood boil.

 

"I eat food such as meat and potatoes."

Literate person hears: "meat and potatoes are two examples of food I eat"

Brady bunch hears: "meat and potatoes ARE THE ONLY FOOD I EVER EAT!"

 

[NakPPI]

Response to ny case

 

Absolutely right on the money.

[sirflyguy]

Response to ny case

 

Absolutely right on the money.

Slapping their bottoms with law, logic, and truth!

[mauserme]

Response to ny case

 

Absolutely right on the money.

 

Do you suppose Mr. Jensen had as much fun writing that response as it I think he did?

[stm]

Response to ny case

 

Absolutely right on the money.

 

Do you suppose Mr. Jensen had as much fun writing that response as it I think he did?

As much fun as Gura had with the "Mootness Memo?" Probably.

 

;-)

[TyGuy]

I'm guessing one of the first places we may be able to find out about this ruling would be here:

 

http://www.ilcd.usco...ersopinions.htm

 

of course under MYERSCOUGH, SUE E., U.S. District Judge

 

which currently says "None at this time."

Because I am tired of going back to page 7 to check on the status, I thought I would bump this up.

[Drylok]

Why do you have to go back to page 7 to check the status?

[TyGuy]

To find that link.

[NakPPI]

To find that link.

My link

[TyGuy]

I know how to bookmark, but I have my work pc, my at home laptop, mac mini, and ipad. I don't want to create 4 bookmarks, and then forget to remove them. I only like to bookmark things that I will permanently want.

[JackTripper]

That link may be pretty useless. She decided a union vs Illinois case last Friday, and nothing has been posted.

[Ocellairs]

As a practical matter, the governor has promised a veto of LTC, so one would need a super majority (probably plus 1 or 2 votes as a safety measure) anyway, so one might as well go for something more useful.

 

I have no doubts, that a margin - minimum number of votes would be greater than the 1 or 2 as you have suggested. I wouldn't feel comfortable with anything less than 9 vote margin.

[bob]

As a practical matter, the governor has promised a veto of LTC, so one would need a super majority (probably plus 1 or 2 votes as a safety measure) anyway, so one might as well go for something more useful.

 

I have no doubts, that a margin - minimum number of votes would be greater than the 1 or 2 as you have suggested. I wouldn't feel comfortable with anything less than 9 vote margin.

 

 

And you guys call me a pessimist?

 

A 9 vote margin. That would be 80 votes in the house. that is a tough row to hoe.

 

In any case, I think the senate is a tougher nut to crack anyway, but getting 80 votes in the house on anything, especially something that involves home rule preemption and guns is just tough. I do seem to recall that it has happened in recent years though. Wasn't there a veto override of Blago on the bill preempting home rule units ordinances when there was a defense firearms use?

 

But that was something that had wide support and was relatively non-controversial.

[Don Gwinn]

"Now therefore, plaintiffs do not oppose defendants' motion to cite Kachalsky. However, the Kachalsky court's approach does not apply to the present case."

 

Translation: go ahead and cite the case, hoss, if you think that's the best use of your time. Good luck with that.

[stm]

"Now therefore, plaintiffs do not oppose defendants' motion to cite Kachalsky. However, the Kachalsky court's approach does not apply to the present case."

 

Translation: go ahead and cite the case, hoss, if you think that's the best use of your time. Good luck with that.

LOL!

 

Thanks for the "translation," Don!

[Drylok]

My heart sinks every time I see this thread has a new post in it. *Sigh*

[Sigma]

Sorry Drylok. Yes I just posted just to get you excited. Im sorry couldnt resist.

[stm]

It's been almost two months since the hearing. I wonder how much longer the judge needs to think this one over.

 

Edit: Sorry, Drylok. Didn't mean to get you excited over another meaningless post in this thread.

[Drylok]

It's been almost two months since the hearing. I wonder how much longer the judge needs to think this one over.

 

Until the IL GA comes convenes for the veto session???

[stm]

It's been almost two months since the hearing. I wonder how much longer the judge needs to think this one over.

 

Until the IL GA comes convenes for the veto session???

That seems more and more likely. Although HB148 would probably give us more, at least initially, I would rather see a court ruling in our favor, declaring the Right-To-Carry is protected by the 2A.

[Drylok]

It's been almost two months since the hearing. I wonder how much longer the judge needs to think this one over.

 

Until the IL GA comes convenes for the veto session???

That seems more and more likely. Although HB148 would probably give us more, at least initially, I would rather see a court ruling in our favor, declaring the Right-To-Carry is protected by the 2A.

 

It will most likely be a combination of the two. Court says unconstitutional for a complete ban you have X days to fix it, we pass 148 and there we have it.