cshipley92 Posted September 12, 2013 at 04:05 PM Share Posted September 12, 2013 at 04:05 PM (edited) The exception - - FCCA - - means that there isn't a total ban on carrying outside the home. All this case does is give us a state law precedent that 2A exists outside the home, which is huge for future cases. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4 Just playing devil's advocate here but......... Accordingly, as the Seventh Circuit did in Moore, we here hold that, on its face, section 24-1.6(a)(1),(a)(3)(A) violates the right to keep and bear arms,as guaranteed by the second amendment to the United States Constitution. If those sections, UUW and AUUW are unconstitutional and FCCA only provides an exception to them for those who possess a permit issued under the exception, how can you be charged? They can't charge you for violating an unconstitutional law, or the individual officer is libel for damages, therefore we should now have open carry, correct? This basically is the same thing as if the judges had, instead of ruling in the states favor, issued the injunction ordered by the 7th on the day the FCCA passed. IANAL but just using common sense, there is NO difference to me whether the IL Supreme Court issued the ruling or the 7th. If the law is unconstitutional it is unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. Edited September 12, 2013 at 04:10 PM by cshipley92 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now