Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)

OK, it's December now...

Do the courts shut down soon for the Christmas holiday?

If Judge Sue Myerscough hasn't delivered a verdict by now does that mean we won't get one until January at the earliest?
 
A transcript of the Injunction proceedings in Moore v. Madigan has been made available. You download it here.

It's a very good argument by David Jensen. Given the time the court is taking in ruling on the PI, my guess is that the court is trying to write an opinion that twists the facts to the favor of Illinois. I hope I'm wrong, but this seems to be the trend.
 
Well my favorite part so far is when Jensen says, in response to the state's assertion that "There's suggestion that the rate of firearms deaths goes up with public carrying of firearms."

"I am loath to even go there, but to resort to statistics is essentially impertinent. This is a court of law, not a court of social science."
Click to expand...

I'm certainly biased but it seems that the state has problems with contradictions - the one being that they started their argument by saying "This case is not about whether gun regulations are a good or a bad idea." But then they later argue that gun regulations are a good thing and allowing people to carry is a "bad" thing that has significant societal costs.

I also felt that Jensen was correct in pointing out the flaw in their argument referencing 19th Centruy English law... When the 2nd Amemdment was in part a response to England's attempt to disarm the colonies in the first place. And also pointing out that further analysis of 19th century English law should not be undertaken by the lower courts since the Supreme Court has already done the definitive analysis of it in the Heller decision.
 
The decision is out in Moore v. Madigan.

2012-02-03 38 ORDER granting 24 Motion to Dismiss; denying 13 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 13 Motion for Permanent Injunction; ORDER. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 2/3/2012. (CT, ilcd) (CT, ilcd). (Entered: 02/03/2012)
2012-02-03 39 JUDGMENT in favor of Hiram Grau, Lisa Madigan against Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Illinois Carry, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Charles Hooks, Jon Maier, Michael Moore, Peggy Fechter (CT, ilcd) (Entered: 02/03/2012)
2012-02-03 40 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 38 Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Motion for Permanent Injunction, Terminate Deadlines and Hearings, by Peggy Fechter, Charles Hooks, Illinois Carry, Jon Maier, Michael Moore, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 0753-1306898. (Jensen, David) (Entered: 02/03/2012)
Click to expand...

Judge Sue Myerscough gives lip service to the historical approach and then proceeds to cite every district court case that has failed. She then proceeded to find that everyones right to self defense stops at the threshold of your house.

The convolutions the Judge uses to deny the defense of self is staggering, but also was expected.

As the district courts have shown, not only is the collective rights theory alive and well within the judiciary, but that the Supreme Court is indeed, the Court of First Resort, in all matters 2A.

David Jensen immediately appealed not only the denial of the PI, but also the dismissal of the suit.
 
It's really dissapointing also in that it seems to affect the Illinois Leglislature.

Re-introducing HB148 was sort of stalled awaiting the outcome of this and the Shepard case.

If we would have gotten a favorable decision, Illinois HB 148 would probably be called for consideration this month. Since we didn't, I'm thinking we might not see HB148 until after the election.
 
Despite Heller's individual right separate from the militia clause, last time I checked, the militia is still the only stated purpose in the amendment. Are we to believe the amendment was written for only indoor militias? I suppose so.
 
McDonald v. Chicago? What the win looks like!

IMG_2237.jpg


The official docketing of the appeal;
02/06/2012 42 NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re 40[RECAP] Notice of Appeal, filed by Jon Maier, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Charles Hooks, Michael Moore, Illinois Carry, Peggy Fechter. USCA Case Number 12-1269 (VM, ilcd) (Entered: 02/06/2012)
Click to expand...

And over at the 7th CCA;
02/06/2012 1 Private civil case docketed. Fee paid. Transcript information sheet due by 02/21/2012. Docketing Statement due for Appellants Peggy Fechter, Charles Hooks, Jon Maier, Michael Moore, Second Amendment Foundation, Incorporated by 02/10/2012. Appellant's brief due on or before 03/19/2012 for Peggy Fechter, Charles Hooks, Jon Maier, Michael Moore and Second Amendment Foundation, Incorporated. [1] [6372098] [12-1269] (AD)
Click to expand...

Boy, the Week of March 19 is going to be a busy one (9th CCA - Nordyke; 10th CCA - Peterson)!!
 
I'm a little bit dissapointed that Daley's signature is not on that check...

The entire thing happened under Daley, Rahm just happened to be in office when the checks were cut.

The citizens in Oak Park are still demanding to know how much the MacDonald case cost the villlage.
 
The supplemental authority cited above, was filed on Mon, Feb 6th. On Wed, Feb 8th, the NRA responded with a rebuttal, which is here. It is short and sweet, so I'm reproducing it, below:

Now come Plaintiffs who respond to Defendants' Motion to Cite Supplemental Authority (Doc. No. 55) as follows:

1. As Defendants note, in Moore v. Madigan, No. 11-cv-03134 (C.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2012), the Central District of Illinois granted the State's motion to dismiss a Second Amendment challenge to the same Illinois statutes banning public carriage of firearms at issue in this case. Moore does not, however, add anything of substance to Defendants' case.

2. The principal basis for the Moore Court's decision is its sweeping conclusion that "individuals do not have a Second Amendment right to bear arms outside of the home." Moore, Slip. Op. at 47. This conclusion finds no support in the text of the Second Amendment or in history. See Doc. No.40 at 6-13.

3. In reaching its erroneous conclusion that the Second Amendment is limited to the home, Moore asserts that the Supreme Court has not "explicitly recognized a general right to carry firearms in public." Slip. Op. at 28. Supreme Court precedent does, however, speak directly to the meaning of the right to "bear arms" in public subject to regulation, such as involving sensitive places. See Doc. No. 40 at 13-15. At any rate, the fact that the Supreme Court has left an issue not wholly decided does not relieve a lower court of the duty to face that issue squarely when properly presented in a case before it. See id. at 15-16.

4. As an alternative ground for its holding, Moore asserts that Illinois's public carriage ban satisfies intermediate scrutiny. See Slip. Op. at 39-43, 47. As an initial matter, Illinois's ban must be evaluated either pursuant to the textual and historical approach employed by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), or strict scrutiny (both of which it fails), not intermediate scrutiny. See Doc. No. 40 at 17-18. Furthermore, Moore is incorrect in concluding that the ban can survive even intermediate scrutiny. See id. at 18-20.

5. In sum, Plaintiffs have already amply demonstrated in prior briefing to this Court why the conclusions reached by Moore are in error.
Click to expand...

In case you didn't quite understand that, in 5 short paragraphs, the NRA just shredded the Moore decision.
 
So why can't they say it plainly and forceably?

Like so:

The US Supreme Court does not grant new civil rights as cases appear. They protect civil rights which in turn are protected by the Bill Of Rights, Constitution and other documents and rulings.

The Bill Of Rights took effect in 1792. No reasonable government official of 1793 would assume that since the US Supreme Court had not yet made rulings related to the Bill Of Rights in any detail, torturing a confession out of somebody would be constitutional.

That is exactly what the Moore court has ruled: since the US Supreme Court has not yet ruled on "bearing arms", no constitutional right to "bear arms" exists, even though any possible reading shows the same group of people must possess both the right to "keep" and "bear" arms and no scholarly authority has ever tried to differenciate the two.

---

How simple is that?
 
Wow, that's quite a read.

I don't know if I'm just biased, but I can't understand how Judge Myerscough could have ruled as she did.

SCOTUS has identified and clarified that 2nd Amendment Rights exist - in Heller and MacDonald. The state cannot have an interest in the wholesale prohibition of a constitutional right.

Illinois has been given three clear examples that broad outright bans are unconstitutional first in Heller, then MacDonald and then Ezell.

Then along comes Sue Mysercough who utilized the most convulted and self-contradictory logic possible to approve a virtually identical ban codified in state law.
 
OK. The actual brief was only 61 pages. The rest of the brief was an appendix: District Court Opinion and Judgment.

So what was in the 61 relevant pages? Pretty much what we should expect.

The first 18 pages entails on how Judge Myerscough erred in her opinion and judgment. The rest is devoted to the historical evidence that carry, in whatever form, is part and parcel of the core right to self defense.

3. The District Court’s Decision

The District Court began its analysis of the merits by opining that “neither the United States Supreme Court nor any United States Court of Appeals has recognized” a right to carry handguns in public for self-defense. SA 14. It then opined that District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) is limited to its facts of having a gun at home. SA 16.

Curiously, the District Court then cited this Court’s holding that “the Second Amendment creates individual rights, one of which is keeping operable handguns at home for self-defense. What other entitlements the Second Amendment creates . . . were left open.” SA 17 (quoting United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc)) (emphasis added). The District Court asserted that McDonald applied against state actors “the right to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense.” SA 17.

The District Court then offered that this Court’s opinion in Ezell “did not make a finding regarding the scope of the Second Amendment outside of the home.” SA 19. And Ezell’s citation to Skoien’s observation that “one of” the Second Amendment’s rights is the right to having arms at home was said by the lower court to “support[] the conclusion that the Second Amendment right, as recognized by the Supreme Court, does not extend outside of the home.” Id. The District Court confirmed its conclusion with citation to a number of opinions that similarly limited the Second Amendment. SA 19-22.

The District Court found that assuming that the Second Amendment secures rights outside the home, such rights would warrant no more than intermediate scrutiny. SA 38. The District Court then balanced any public Second Amendment right out of existence by finding that completely prohibiting the carrying of guns for self-defense is substantially related to the government’s asserted public safety interest. SA 42. Denial of Plaintiffs’ motion, and the granting of Defendants’ motion, followed directly from this determination of the constitutional merits.
Click to expand...

The above is an accurate, if somewhat simplistic, stating of the actions of the court below. Since the appeal is on the nature of the MTD and the denial of the injunction, the 7th circuits review of Myerscough's decision will be De Novo.

That means that the 7th circuit panel will review all the facts of the case as if for the first time. And those facts (the historical record) are laid out in much detail. In one brief, David Sigale has laid out almost the entire record that was originally in many of the amici to Heller.

If you want to brush up on your history of applicable judicial cites, this brief is an excellent study. David Sigale is excellent when it comes to this sort of thing.

I have to mention that it is becoming harder to distinguish the writings of David Sigale and David Jensen from that of Alan Gura. Sigale appears to be the researcher, while Jensen is the firebrand. They are both being tempered by the wordsmithing abilities of their associate, Alan Gura. I may be wrong in my assumptions, here, but after reading all of their pleadings, we are experiencing another Gura first - Team-Building.

This is a distinct, "Good Thing."
 
The 7th Cir has 4 Reagan appointees, 3 Bush /combo appointees, 2 Clinton and 1 Obama appointee.

After the Judge Myerscough debacle I'm beginning to think that the only thing that matters is their political view / what party they belong to.
 
Bingo.

For upcoming elections I want a list of gun friendly people in Illinois that are up for election.

Most of the time there are too many judges and most people including myself do not know what they stand for.
 
Does anyone have a good bead on Mary Jane Theis's(running for Illinois Supreme court) judicial record or public statements about the second amendment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top