The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 11, 2012, 12:31 PM   #176
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
It's great.

I wonder if King and Davis will say "Can't we send Woollard over to the 7th?
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 01:11 PM   #177
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 545
We won

The federal appeals court has ruled IL's ban on concealed carry unconstitutional. It has stayed injunction of the state's policy to give the Legislature time of write an "appropriate" law allowing concealed carry.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/2...d_weapons.html

Oh, and Lisa Madigan had no comment.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 01:22 PM   #178
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
Going to be very interesting to see what happens next. Illinois has no real choice about it though. If they appeal to SCOTUS they will lose and really "harm" the anti gun community. Another year might go by but they will lose and then it will open up a lot of other states with "strong" restrictions on CC like California and New York to lawsuits.

I have a feeling something like HB148, which has been waiting in the wings will be passed. Despite common perceptions even on a critical issue like this politicians tend to move very slow. Illinois has a lot of serious issues that need to be tackled in the coming legislative sessions so it would be a lot easier, even for the anti gun types to pass a bill like HB148 and then try to "fix" it later.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/Bill...ionID=84&GA=97


It really brings me pleasure knowing Mayor Emanuel, Anita Alverez and the Madigans must be stomping around in their respective offices so angry right now.
Patriot86 is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 01:29 PM   #179
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
I take back any nice things I ever said about Judge Williams:


http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward...183017841.html


Quote:
Dissenting was Judge Ann Claire Williams, a Clinton appointee and a professor at Northwestern and John Marshall. Wrote Williams:

That a legislature can forbid the carrying of firearms in schools and government buildings means that any right to possess a gun for self-defense outside the home is not absolute, and it is not absolute by the Supreme Court’s own terms.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 01:42 PM   #180
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,049
Posner wrote the opinion, holding that:

Quote:
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions.

Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.
The decision is here [pdf].

Williams is correct. Scalia made it clear in Heller that the right wasn't absolute.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 01:56 PM   #181
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,957
CONGRATULATIONS, ILLINOIS!
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 02:02 PM   #182
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,526
Consider me confused. I thought Heller allowed the right to keep the guns at home but did not speak to a right to carry in public.

Do I get this wrong? I would hope it was the latter but .
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 02:02 PM   #183
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,049
Here are the juicy bits.

Quote:
Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim, while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter. That creates an arbitrary difference. 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. It is not a property right—a right to kill a houseguest who in a fit of aesthetic fury tries to slash your copy of Norman Rockwell’s painting Santa with Elves. That is not self-defense, and this case, like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense. [p. 8]
Again, rational basis is off the table, and the government is required to make a "strong showing" of need to restrict carry:

Quote:
In Skoien we said that the government had to make a “strong showing” that a gun ban was vital to public safety—it was not enough that the ban was “rational.” 614 F.3d at 641. Illinois has not made that strong showing—and it would have to make a stronger showing in this case than the government did in Skoien, because the curtailment of gun rights was much narrower: there the gun rights of persons convicted of domestic violence, here the gun rights of the entire law-abiding adult population of Illinois. [p. 14]
Quote:
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. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense. Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions. Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public. [pp. 20-21]
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 02:07 PM   #184
RedBowTies88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2011
Location: 609 NJ
Posts: 705
Congrats Illinois!


I knew you guys would get it before NJ! I'm a little jealous but this can only mean good things for the rest of us in opressed states!


WHOO HOOO!!!!

(I literally just yelled that in the middle of my office, my boss thinks I'm crazy but I couldn't care less)
__________________
"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 21. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
RedBowTies88 is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 02:15 PM   #185
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
I think it comes down to having the right case. A confluence of the right circumstances, the plaintiffs, the law in question...

This case had 2 great plaintiffs, and Illinois law was the worst and most restrictive and arbitrary in the nation. I think it was a better case than Kachalski or Woollard..
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 02:21 PM   #186
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
I wonder if folks who have been convicted under the Illinois law of "unlawfull use of a weapon" - for doing nothing more than having it on them, will be able to have their records cleared somehow?
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 02:22 PM   #187
RedBowTies88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2011
Location: 609 NJ
Posts: 705
Quote:
I wonder if folks who have been convicted under the Illinois law of "unlawfull use of a weapon" - for doing nothing more than having it on them, will be able to have their records cleared somehow?
I would doubt that, they still broke state law... as unconstitutional as said law my be
__________________
"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 21. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
RedBowTies88 is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 02:22 PM   #188
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,049
Quote:
I thought Heller allowed the right to keep the guns at home but did not speak to a right to carry in public.
The arguments were confined to that, but Scalia left a few breadcrumbs on the matter, as did Alito in McDonald.

Posner's interesting on this. If we restrict the right to the home, it's a property right. If we accept the interpretation of the Supreme Court, it's about the right to self-defense, which is not limited to the home.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 02:27 PM   #189
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,526
So does it go back to SCOTUS. If they don't take, then it stands and IL has to deal with it but it isn't a national precedent but confined in area.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 02:43 PM   #190
breakingcontact
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 736
This is for all the folks who said it'd never happen.
breakingcontact is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 02:55 PM   #191
mrvco
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 1, 2011
Posts: 214
I guess IL is about to lose its status as a "Right to Victimize" state
mrvco is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 02:58 PM   #192
breakingcontact
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 736
Will this grant the right in the whole state or will cities still be able to pass their own bans?
breakingcontact is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 03:01 PM   #193
Isk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2011
Location: Alaska
Posts: 181
Wow, congratulations to Illinois!

Thank you to everybody who fought the good fight instead of simply turning tail and running to another state. New Jersey, New York and CA next?

I sure hated reading Posner in law school, but I think I'm starting to like the guy a little bit more...
__________________
The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. -James Burgh
Isk is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 03:06 PM   #194
RedBowTies88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2011
Location: 609 NJ
Posts: 705
What do you guys think of the odds are of IL becoming just like NJ with a "Justifiable need clause" type of may issue system that basically renders it impossible to get a license?
__________________
"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 21. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
RedBowTies88 is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 03:07 PM   #195
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,637
IL gets concealed carry... Hmmm, I am starting to take that December 21 thing more seriously now...
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 03:09 PM   #196
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,049
Quote:
Will this grant the right in the whole state or will cities still be able to pass their own bans?
Nope. The bans are unconstitutional, so the state has to appeal or come up with a law that allows carry.

What that law may contain remains to be seen.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 03:10 PM   #197
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
When LA County changes from the function ban of "may permit" to "shall permit", that's when I'll be TRULY surprised.
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 03:15 PM   #198
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
You suppose the antis in California are now trembling? I know we have a long way to go but we are getting there.
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 03:23 PM   #199
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,117
It's just too bad this wasn't available when the 9th heard 3 cases last week. I'd say California and Hawaii need to look closer at their laws now.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearm Safety and Pistol Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Old December 11, 2012, 03:31 PM   #200
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
Folks, we're talking about the Constitution of the United States, the overturning of the IL law is incidental compared to the legal principles that are set out in this opinion.

This redifines the meaning of "to bear" in exactly the way that the Brady Campaign, LCAV and anti-gunners argued against. But a great quote from Posner in orals:

Quote:
What does it mean to bear arms if there's no right to carry arms in a public place?

You don't bear arms in your house, you don't march around with a gun over your shoulder right?
Luger_carbine is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.18081 seconds with 8 queries