View Single Post
Old September 15, 2011, 03:30 PM   #76
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,541
Kalchalsky is a carry case. It is a carry case that involves the discretionary issuing of a carry permit.

In Moore (and also Shepard), the issue isn't about a discretionary issuance of a permit. The issue is a complete ban on carrying an operational defensive firearm in any form (open or concealed).

In his reply to the notice, Attorney Jensen simply states that the decision in Kalchalsky has no bearing whatsoever on the issues facing the court in Moore. David Jensen goes even further. He is saying that if this is all the State has, then he welcomes the States Notice of Supplemental Authority, as it bolsters his own case against the State of Illinois.

He's right. The State, by submitting this case as an authority is implicitly acknowledging that the State has no permit and that there is in fact a complete ban on exercising a fundamental right.

In the case of Palmer and Woollard, Alan Gura has shown how the Kalchalsky decision flies in the face of historical analysis as commanded by the Supreme Court in Heller and the 7th Circuit in Ezell.

The Judge in Kalchalsky was very stupid. She let her emotions and bias override her judicial demeanor. We have seen this in some of the past decisions at district court, but never to this extent.
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.05200 seconds with 7 queries