It hasn't been remanded to the lower courts - the court is in the process of responding to a petition by the defendant (Illinois) to re-hear the case en banc. What's next is waiting to see if a judge will call for a vote on whether or not to hear the case en banc (someone probably will).
I see Cooper & Gura addressing two different aspects of Kachalsky that aren't necesarily in conflict with each other. My interpretation of what Cooper is saying is that Kachalsky supports the decision in Moore/Shepard because CA2 judges said that “New York’s proper cause requirement does not operate as a complete ban on the possession of handguns in public.” which Cooper is using to say that If New York did have a complete ban on the possession of all firearms in public, it's law would have been ruled unconstitutional by the CA2 judges in Kachalsky - Illinois does have a ban on the possession of firearms in public - so even CA2 with their comments in Kachalsky are indicating that it would be unconstitutional. - No conflict.
Gura says the CA7 panel rejected Kachalsky, and CA2 got it wrong anyway. Gura points out that the court in Kachalsky never dealt with what it means to "Bear Arms". And also that the court in Kachalsky dismisses the whole issue of self defense being an enumerated right in the constitution in the Second Amendment. Heller says that the Second Amendment spells out a right to self defense - CA2 in Kachalsky ignores that.
I don't see Cooper & Gura in direct conflict - just addressing different things.
Last edited by Luger_carbine; January 24, 2013 at 01:10 PM.