I don't know why the dissenters felt compelled to spell out a list of things gun control politicians in Illinois can do post Moore. Maybe they realized that Chicago has legal minds like Paul Castigliano who don't have a clue, so they decided the anti-gun faction there needed help.
Besides being inappropriate IMO, they seem to give some bad advice citing Kachalsky as giving governments the right to issue based on "proper cause". Not ony that but they are saying it in the section where they are discussing that Moore leaves the State a good deal of constitutional room for reasonable public safety measures.
Posner says in thew majority opinion:
Quote:
To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald
this case, like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense.
'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.
|
How do you sqaure that with "good cause" ?
Only people who have had an overt threat against them ever get car jacked, or raped, mugged, robbed ?
Only people who transport diamonds and money or a similar occupation are in danger of being car jacked or robbed?
Only
those people have the need of self defense, therefore only those people are allowed to exercise that right?
Plenty of evidence in society that this is not so. Probably a hundred true stories on this forum alone refuting that assumption.
I mean, if the dissenting judges want to argue that point - that's OK, they could argue it in the section where they list why they think the panel's dicidion was wrong. But they're putting this out in the section where they are discussing what Illinois can still do.
It seems to me that they have a flawed understanding of what Moore really says and the ramifications of the decision.