Even if we believed that we should look solely to this highly ambiguous history and tradition to determine the meaning of the Amendment, we would find that the cited sources do not directly address the specific question before us: Can New York limit handgun licenses to those demonstrating a special need for self-protection? Unlike the cases and statutes discussed above, New York’s proper cause requirement does not operate as a complete ban on the possession of handguns in public.
What they have in Illinois DOES
operate as a complete ban on the possession of handguns in public. I think when Karl Trieble tried
to intimate that the law didn't, Judge Posner rejected that - I'm referring to the 4 corners of the house argument, which Posner replied something like - "if you live in an apartment - you don't have any land"
I know Judge Posner isn't beholden to other circuit court judges but my reasoning is this - if the judges in Kachalsky could see that an ourtright ban on public carrying is unconstitutional, then the Judges at the 7th circuit must certainly see that also. And if Judges Katzmann, Wesley and Lynch consider the proper cause exception in NY to cause NY's law to not be a complete ban on the possession of handguns in public, then IL, which has no proper cause provision must therefore have in existance a complete ban on the possession of handguns in public which is unconstitutional.
Judge Williams talked about it in her example of a woman being stalked, and having to to disarm herself when going to and from work, and the stalker of course knowing that under Illinois law she would be vulnerable during that time...
Trieble replied "It's a difficult policy choice that the legislature has made..."
Posner interupts "Sounds pretty easy, other states do make an exception for people who have a protective order..."