Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)

consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion,
Click to expand...

To me, the highlighted phrase above should prevent an overly restrictive law. The judge has laid down a very strong ruling.
 
All joking aside, if Illinois is to have a concealed or open carry law, then there need to be some reasonable restrictions as to who is and isn't allowed to carry. Reasonable restrictions prohibiting people from carrying who are: named Rahm, Governors of Illinois and Chicago aldermen (who have shown a propensity for criminality), Speakers of the House whose first name is Mike, and members of organizations that evidence an irrational fear of firearms such as the Brady Campaign. Additional restrictions should include places that individuals are not allowed to carry, such as showers and swimming pools as they contribute to rust.
 
What I find interesting about this case is that it could have national consequences. If Lisa Madigan wants to appeal to the US Supreme Court, it could invite justices to expand earlier decisions and in effect limit restrictions on concealed carry in other states besides Illinois. Could the Justices rule that "may issue" laws in states like California, Massachusetts and New York are unconstitutional, and that all states must be shall issue? New York City and Washington DC CCW bans too could be ruled unconstitutional. After all, the Illinois Appellate ruling basically said the CCW ban violates a constitutional right to bear arms "outside the home". If Madigan wants to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, national gun control advocates better be careful what they wish for, because if the US Supreme Court concurs with the Illinois Appellate Court, ramifications go far beyond Illinois.
 
Could the Justices rule that "may issue" laws in states like California, Massachusetts and New York are unconstitutional, and that all states must be shall issue?
Click to expand...

Not with this case. They would affirm the 7th Circuit's ruling. Like Heller saying nothing about bearing arms in public, it'll take another case like the one in Maryland or New York to spell the death knell of "may issue."
 
Willie, the 30 second meaning for both the Richards and Woollard 28J's are: In Moore, the 7th Circuit said that carry for self-defense is the core right. The people must be able to exercise that right in some form both inside and outside of the home. The 7th Circuit also called into question the Kachalsky decision from the 2nd Circuit and criticized their historical interpretation by saying the history used by the Heller Court precludes the history used by the dissenters in Heller.

das1115, I can almost guarantee that should Lisa Madigan petition for cert, it will be denied. Add to this, that she would be spending political capital she cannot afford to lose. She could motion for reconsideration/en banc and she might even get it. Chances are good that the CA7 would grant the en banc hearing. That would automatically stay the current panel decision, because that decision would be rescinded. That would stall everything for about a year.

But if the en banc court affirms the panels decision, Madigan again loses capital she cannot afford to lose (see, she wants to run for Governor and needs every Democratic vote she can garner). Madigan has less than an even chance of winning this case.

Now let's assume she does file the petition for cert and the Court grants it. I firmly feel the Court will affirm Judge Posner's decision. That would cast the right to carry inside and outside the home as a national right. That would be disastrous for the anti-gun crowd. Madigan is much smarter than that (Chicago isn't, but that's another thread).

The case to be watching is Woollard. Should that decision be in our favor, then a clear circuit split would force the Court to take Kachalsky. While there is a technical split between the 2nd Circuit and the 7th Circuit, it is very slight. Not enough at this point in time for the Court to worry about it.

At the moment, I really believe the Court is simply watching what percolates out of the circuit courts. That's why I don't think the Court would grant cert in the Moore/Shepard decision.

Here's some internal courtroom politics to think about!

The 2nd Circuit basically says that the right to carry exists outside the home, but it is far removed from the Heller decision and therefore can be regulated away (the panel stated they were using intermediate scrutiny, but it was in fact, rational basis) to the point it doesn't exist for the common man.

Judge Legg however, said that the right exists outside the home and cannot be regulated out of existence. Judge Posner used some very strong words, in a well crafted decision, to say much the same thing.

That puts the CA4 panel in a quandary. No circuit intentionally wants to create a split. So their choice is to affirm Judge Legg's decision, creating a split with the CA2, or dismissing Judge Posner's legal acumen. Rock? Meet hard place!

Also recall from the oral arguments that this panel (CA4) appeared to be woefully ignorant of the basic issues. I really can't make a call on which way they will decide.
 
I made a comment earlier in this thread about the people wrongly arrested getting their records cleared on post 216.
Now, the people of Illinois that have been wrongly arrested and weapons confiscated need to file suits on the state and towns for getting their records cleaned up, their firearms replaced at city and state cost, et al!
Their arrests can be expunged in the cases of otherwise honest citizens.
Click to expand...
I was asked what I based it on. Today, Annie Dookhan made news in Boston by tampering with evidence. She isn't the first to do this, http://www.vice.com/read/hey-boston-thanks-to-annie-dookhan-your-streets-will-soon-be-flooded-with-drug-criminals, but things happen.
I believe otherwise honest citizens arrested under the unconstitutionally of Ill. law can and should seek restitution. Too many restrictive states and cities love building arrest stats and guns removed from the streets by getting citizens on technicalities such as stepping outside the house with a firearm to go to the range but doing it 'wrongly', or whatever instead of arresting criminal. imho, of course.
 
Darn, I see Don H posted a more relevant rely on post 226.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
Don H, I think his rationale is that this particular change will have been due to the prior law having just been ruled unconstitutional. IE, it was not "changed," it was invalidated.

I had time to do some research and came across this tidbit:

Quote:
38 ALR Fed. 617
"Where subsequently to the petitioner's conviction the United States Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals renders a decision holding unconstitutional, as applied to the petitioner, the federal statute under which he had been convicted, the courts have held such decision to be a sufficient or proper ground for granting a petition for a writ of error coram nobis under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651 to vacate the petitioner's federal conviction, even though the sentence had already been served."

So it appears that a conviction under a federal statute later determined to be unconstitutional can be vacated. It seems reasonable that a similar relief would be available for a conviction under an unconstitutional state statute. I haven't yet run across anything that allows a civil action for damages or to recoup expenses. Perhaps one of our legal experts will be able to address this aspect?
Click to expand...


I wish I wasn't so obtuse.
 
News (or lack therof) about Moore

As a sidelight, there have been articles on the Moore decision in the local TV stations based out of Illinois, but deafening silence on the national news media. I watched NBC both days after the decision to see what Brian Williams had to say, but no mention was made of it. I guess they're operating under the delusion that if you just ignore that horrid thing, it'll go away! :rolleyes:
 
The Lost Angles Times has been silent also. WSJ did a good article.

It's like the destruction of the tent in Lansing and Steven Crowder getting slugged, a few days ago. If information (and ideas) can be kept out of the echo chamber, the event never happened or the ideas don't exist.

Reality will intrude finally, like gravity, prefaced by the word "unexpectedly".

Thanks for your commentary, Al.
 
I thought the national media might be silent on it because no one in the media realizes the national implications of the Moore decision, but I think there's more to it than that.

There is a priest in Chicago name Michael Phleger who is a gun control activist, and another gun control activist - Lee Goodman, who created "Stop Concealed Carry Coalition" and created an Internet petition and got 7,000 or so signatures. That got a lot of media attention.

The ISRA had something like 14,000 people show up for a protest march at the state capital - and according to the ISRA and Illinoiscarry.com - no media coverage.

10 counties in Illinois had carry referendums on the ballot on Nov 6th and they passed. A quick count of the number of votes for those referendums comes out to be over 100,000 voters. Sometimes a small blurb about 10 counties passing a non-binding referendum - no mention of the thousands and thousands of voters behind it.

It's just odd that the media can mention that Stop Concealed Carry Coalition has 7,000 signatures and not metion the other numbers I've listed.
 
Luger_carbine said:
It's just odd that the media can mention that Stop Concealed Carry Coalition has 7,000 signatures and not metion the other numbers I've listed.
Click to expand...
It seems most of the time the media only publishes what promotes the media agenda. That can be seen in political, environmental, crime reporting, etc. It's pretty pervasive in this country and a darn shame that often the most neutral reporting on American issues is to be found in the foreign media. It's a sad state of affairs when more truth can be found in Pravda (<---small funny) than in the New York Times.
 
Don H said:
It's a sad state of affairs when more truth can be found in Pravda (<---small funny) than in the New York Times.
Click to expand...
That's not a funny -- when I was involved with a Russian woman some years ago I started looking at Pravda, and I found that their reporting on events in the U.S. was generally accurate, and surprisingly free of malice and propaganda. It may have more of a slant today, but it can't be any more slanted than our own major media outlets.
 
Actually, I was referring to the play on words.

Al Jazeera can be quite neutral and thought-provoking on non-Islamic news in general. Their coverage of Islamic issues can be surprisingly pithy, pointed and controversial. A number of Islamic countries have shut Al Jazeera offices down or arrested reporters because their reporting was deemed to be too critical of the government.
 
A point of clarification please due to my confusion.

If Illinois passes a CCW law does is have to be "Shall Issue" or does the court order allow "May Issue" to be passed.

I have read different opinions about the above and was wondering.

Thank you

NukemJim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top