Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Luger_Carbine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim March
Kachalsky was designed to confirm that carry outside the home, IN SOME FORM, is a basic civil right.
|
That's what the court said in Moore/Shepard
Kachalsky deals with just cause.
|
Kachalsky dealt with "proper cause" only because New York does not allow carry in any manner without the permit. In the pleadings and in the orals (both district and CA2) this point was made several times. The point was also made that the plaintiffs didn't care if it was open or concealed; with or without a license, as long as they were able to exercise their basic right of self defense.
What the CA2 did was to agree that there was a right to self defense outside the home, but that the right was far enough removed from the core of the right (They didn't say "in the home" but the implications were quite clear) that the State could regulate it however they desired (rational basis review, however the court chose to dress it up).
Quote:
|
Politics aside, theoretically Illinois could have passed carry legislation that would have addressed the complaints made by Moore/Shepard case, but Illinois could have instituted may issues / good cause.
|
They still can. Nowhere in judge Posner's decision does it say that IL must provide a "shall issue" means of carry.