The supplemental authority cited above, was filed on Mon, Feb 6th. On Wed, Feb 8th, the NRA responded with a rebuttal, which is here
. It is short and sweet, so I'm reproducing it, below:
Now come Plaintiffs who respond to Defendants' Motion to Cite Supplemental Authority (Doc. No. 55) as follows:
1. As Defendants note, in Moore v. Madigan, No. 11-cv-03134 (C.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2012), the Central District of Illinois granted the State's motion to dismiss a Second Amendment challenge to the same Illinois statutes banning public carriage of firearms at issue in this case. Moore does not, however, add anything of substance to Defendants' case.
2. The principal basis for the Moore Court's decision is its sweeping conclusion that "individuals do not have a Second Amendment right to bear arms outside of the home." Moore, Slip. Op. at 47. This conclusion finds no support in the text of the Second Amendment or in history. See Doc. No.40 at 6-13.
3. In reaching its erroneous conclusion that the Second Amendment is limited to the home, Moore asserts that the Supreme Court has not "explicitly recognized a general right to carry firearms in public." Slip. Op. at 28. Supreme Court precedent does, however, speak directly to the meaning of the right to "bear arms" in public subject to regulation, such as involving sensitive places. See Doc. No. 40 at 13-15. At any rate, the fact that the Supreme Court has left an issue not wholly decided does not relieve a lower court of the duty to face that issue squarely when properly presented in a case before it. See id. at 15-16.
4. As an alternative ground for its holding, Moore asserts that Illinois's public carriage ban satisfies intermediate scrutiny. See Slip. Op. at 39-43, 47. As an initial matter, Illinois's ban must be evaluated either pursuant to the textual and historical approach employed by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), or strict scrutiny (both of which it fails), not intermediate scrutiny. See Doc. No. 40 at 17-18. Furthermore, Moore is incorrect in concluding that the ban can survive even intermediate scrutiny. See id. at 18-20.
5. In sum, Plaintiffs have already amply demonstrated in prior briefing to this Court why the conclusions reached by Moore are in error.
In case you didn't quite understand that, in 5 short paragraphs, the NRA just shredded the Moore