View Single Post
Old March 6, 2014, 08:09 PM   #20
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 353
The problem with Moore for the grabber side is that it merely concluded and directed that Illinois enact a carry law--but did not direct what kind of carry law. Illinois was perfectly free (aside from politics) to enact a "may issue" concealed carry law, or even an open carry law. Although you see the argument often enough (as in the Brady Campaign motion for rehearing in Peruta, and the similar arguments made by LCAV), there is a substantial likelihood that the Supreme Court will recognize a right to "bear" arms outside the home--Heller tells us as much, no matter how often that specific language is ignored by the anits.

So instead what they are trying to do is to ban or severely restrict concealed carry, arguing that even if there is a right to carry, concealed carry may be constitutionally banned. That is what all of the east coast cases have said and where they want the Ninth Circuit to go.

Moore therefore was not a good case for the banners to appeal. And they've won all of the others at the Circuit level, so it is only the 2A supporters who are appealing, not governmental authorities or associated anti groups. Peruta, on the other hand, is a must win case for their side--the only reason "they" would not appeal it is because of an interest in preserving the decisions they've gotten in 2, 3, and 4. But none of those groups get to tell Kamala Harris what to do--and unless she is denied intervention, or fails to obtain a reversal through en banc proceedings, will likely appeal no matter. You have to understand that she is a true believer in gun bans, gun registration and a ban on concealed carry for the whole state of California, nor is she beholden to any activist group, and as far as can be ascertained from the pleadings, did not coordinating with them before filing her motions.

Last edited by 62coltnavy; March 6, 2014 at 08:15 PM.
62coltnavy is offline  
Page generated in 0.04589 seconds with 8 queries