Originally Posted by 62coltnavy
The decision is of course not binding on the Ninth Circuit, and moreover, the three California cases and the one Hawaii cases all dealt with the scope of the sheriff's discretion under the state "may issue" statute, an issue not presented in Moore v. Madigan (there was no right to carry in Illinois for self defense until today), i.e., what may be required by was of "good cause" for issuance. The decision will be persuasive to the extent that there is still an argument being presented by various governmental entities that the right to "bear" does not extend beyond the home.
What this decision does help to do, with respect to the CA and HW cases, is that it is now a persuasive argument that the law must allow for a law-abiding citizen to carry in some form, in public places (self-defense = "good cause").
In his decision, Judge Richard Posner wrote in several ways, that there is no real difference in self-defense, inside or outside the home. The most revealing statement was this:
The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside.
Within the domain of the CA7, and within Illinois in particular, while a specific type of scrutiny was not used, the above implies that whatever the IL legislature does, will have to withstand a very high level of judicial review, "if not quite strict scrutiny" (Ezell,
If I'm reading this correctly, Illinois will now have to justify any laws against public carry in the same manner they would have to justify laws against guns in the home. That doesn't mean that IL will get a "Shall Issue" law, merely that whatever form the legislature decides upon, it will have to pass (real) Intermediate Scrutiny, at the very least.