PDA

View Full Version : MOORE V MADIGAN DECISION (IL, 7th Circuit, Dec 2012)


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

safewaysecurity
12-11-2012, 9:12 AM
Looks like I'm first with the news. Just check CA7 website and the decision is out!! On my phone but thought I should update.

safewaysecurity
12-11-2012, 9:16 AM
Just read some of it... looks like a loss...

...

...
...


...



FOR ILLINOIS!!! HAHAHA. SUCK IT!

M. D. Van Norman
12-11-2012, 9:18 AM
The theoretical and empirical evidence … is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense. Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified.… It has failed to meet this burden. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand … them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions. Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment.…

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/moore/12-1269-Moore-Opinion-2012-12-11.pdf

Looks like a victory to me.

CalBear
12-11-2012, 9:23 AM
Both Heller and McDonald do say that “the need
for defense of self, family, and property is most acute”
in the home, id. at 3036 (emphasis added); 554 U.S. at
628, but that doesn’t mean it is not acute outside the home.
Heller repeatedly invokes a broader Second
Amendment right than the right to have a gun in
one’s home, as when it says that the amendment
“guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and
carry weapons in case of confrontation.” 554 U.S. at 592.
Confrontations are not limited to the home.

The Second Amendment states in its entirety that “a
well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (emphasis added).
The right to “bear” as distinct from the right to “keep”
arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of “bearing”
arms within one’s home would at all times have been
an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies
a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.

Whiskey_Sauer
12-11-2012, 9:25 AM
Just read some of it... looks like a loss...

Most definitely not.

CalBear
12-11-2012, 9:26 AM
Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians.
But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be
attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in
his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower.
A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a
protective order against a violent ex-husband is more
vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from
her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense
claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than
the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with
doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under
her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim,
while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter.
That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine
the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second
Amendment from the right of self-defense described
in Heller and McDonald. It is not a property right—a right
to kill a houseguest who in a fit of aesthetic fury tries
to slash your copy of Norman Rockwell’s painting
Santa with Elves. That is not self-defense, and this case
like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense.
A gun is a potential danger to more people if carried

Yes!

safewaysecurity
12-11-2012, 9:29 AM
Oh woopsy bad. Pay no attention to my initial analysis that was based on reading a little a bit of the first and last few sentences. When I saw that they said they left the decision with illinois I thought all hope was lost.

curtisfong
12-11-2012, 9:31 AM
You should clarify that you were reading the dissent :)

CalBear
12-11-2012, 9:32 AM
In any event the court in
Kachalsky used the distinction between self-protection
inside and outside the home mainly to suggest that a
standard less demanding than “strict scrutiny” should
govern the constitutionality of laws limiting the carrying
of guns outside the home; our analysis is not
based on degrees of scrutiny, but on Illinois’s failure to
justify the most restrictive gun law of any of the 50 states.

CalBear
12-11-2012, 9:36 AM
It looks like a smack down to me. They followed Heller and actually minded the portions about self-defense and noted that a right most acutely applying to the home doesn't mean it doesn't apply outside the home.

zhyla
12-11-2012, 9:37 AM
Anyone have a link to the decision? The CA7 website confuses me.

RMP91
12-11-2012, 9:37 AM
DP.

RMP91
12-11-2012, 9:37 AM
A win?! Against CHICAGO no less?!

There was probably a magic mushroom or two in that omelette I had for breakfast this morning!

(PS: I'm joking, but seriously, I'm surprised).

CalBear
12-11-2012, 9:39 AM
Anyone have a link to the decision? The CA7 website confuses me.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=12-1269&submit=showdkt

safewaysecurity
12-11-2012, 9:39 AM
They seemed to have framed it in a way so that the case only applies to Illinois and doesn't cause a circuit split. But the language of the decision seems to indicate otherwise

mdimeo
12-11-2012, 9:43 AM
Clear win.

Illinois, unfortunately, is going to respond with an extremely restrictive may-issue law, and round-and-round it'll go.

Seems like not enough of a split against Kachalsky or Masciandaro to force supreme court review.

ETA: kalchasky/masciandaro summary is on page 17-19. Main holding P.20-21. Dissent starts on 21. I mostly skimmed
before about 15, but it's basically heller-style historical analysis, as is the dissent.

Maestro Pistolero
12-11-2012, 9:43 AM
YES. A citable decision for all pending carry cases. And just in time for Christmas!

speedrrracer
12-11-2012, 9:45 AM
The Legally Ignorant want to know:

Does this mean strict scrutiny is up a creek without a paddle?

For some reason I have this hierarchy stuck in my head: rational basis on the bottom, intermediate scrutiny in the middle, and strict on top. The quotes:

Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis...

and

...our analysis is not
based on degrees of scrutiny...

suggest to my uninformed brain that strict scrutiny is getting no love.

Nonetheless, seems like a victory to me, and victory == Good Thing

rplusplus
12-11-2012, 9:47 AM
Clear win.

Illinois, unfortunately, is going to respond with an extremely restrictive may-issue law, and round-and-round it'll go.



That is kind of what I read into it. It appears as if the court gave the state and incomplete and said go rewrite your law and if it isn't as restrictive will let you be like the State of New York and just deny permits except for those who can line the Senior LEO / Legislatures pockets...

M. D. Van Norman
12-11-2012, 9:48 AM
It may indeed be a split in that this court has ruled the right exists outside the home. A loss on appeal in one of the other circuits will be based on the only-in-the-home nonsense.

mdimeo
12-11-2012, 9:50 AM
A win?! Against CHICAGO no less?!


Generally, the worse the law, the easier the win should be, which is why we had heller in DC and mcdonald in Chicago.

I don't think we've had circuit-level wins on less-than-complete bans yet.

Pulling in the other direction is the fact that the worst laws tend to be in places with unfriendly judges, too.

CalBear
12-11-2012, 9:52 AM
The Legally Ignorant want to know:

Does this mean strict scrutiny is up a creek without a paddle?
Courts generally take the easiest route to a decision. If it's obvious to the court that self defense applies outside the home and the state offered little to no justification for a law barring individuals from carrying outside the home, then the court doesn't even need scrutiny to laugh at the state and toss out the law.

mdimeo
12-11-2012, 9:52 AM
It may indeed be a split in that this court has ruled the right exists outside the home. A loss on appeal in one of the other circuits will be based on the only-in-the-home nonsense.

Oh, there's a split there. I just don't think it's glaring enough (yet) to force supreme court review if they don't feel like going there.

M. D. Van Norman
12-11-2012, 10:04 AM
That’s always possible, but those nine wise men and women probably don’t just want to watch things burn. ;)

hornswaggled
12-11-2012, 10:08 AM
Yes! Big win.

Kind of nice having a state with moronic gun laws serve as a petri dish for 2A cases.

CCWFacts
12-11-2012, 10:10 AM
From my limited understanding, the court said, "you have a right to carry, but rather than going Vermont-carry right now, we'll give the Illinois legislature 180 days to come up with an orderly way to have shall-issue LTCs". Is that right?

If so that's a major victory for Chicago, which clearly needs it. It will lower crime on the streets and give Illinois Democratic senators (http://www.rrstar.com/updates/x1353217732/Arrested-Illinois-senator-still-making-bid-for-Congress) a way to avoid going to prison for carrying guns.

And a circuit split will be lovely.

safewaysecurity
12-11-2012, 10:13 AM
It certainly has shall issue language I there talking about how merely walking the streets hou have more reason for being ready in case of confrontation than you do in you home on the 37th floor.

Window_Seat
12-11-2012, 10:15 AM
OK, it finally came up:

The Supreme Court rejected the argument. The
appellees ask us to repudiate the Court’s historical analysis.
That we can’t do. Nor can we ignore the implication
of the analysis that the constitutional right of armed selfdefense
is broader than the right to have a gun
in one’s home. The first sentence of the McDonald
opinion states that “two years ago, in District of
Columbia v. Heller, we held that the Second Amendment
protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose
of self-defense,” McDonald v. City of Chicago, supra, 130 S.
Ct. at 3026, and later in the opinion we read
that “Heller explored the right’s origins, noting that the
1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right
to keep arms for self-defense, 554 U.S. at 593, and that
by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right
to keep and bear arms was ‘one of the fundamental rights
of Englishmen,’ id. at 594.” 130 S. Ct. at 3037. And immediately
the Court adds that “Blackstone’s assessment
was shared by the American colonists.” Id.

Just an except of 47 pages above.

Erik.

Moonshine
12-11-2012, 10:19 AM
Is this decision possible to be cited in California counties or is the scope limited to Illinois state? My initial impression was this could only be cited in Illinois... Huge victory tho and really shows the impact of the Heller decision!

Kharn
12-11-2012, 10:20 AM
Decent ruling, SAF already has a foot in the door with the two courts so they can argue anything but affordable shall-issue is unacceptable.

Window_Seat
12-11-2012, 10:21 AM
The judgement of the District Court is reversed and remanded with instructions consistent with this ruling, but the decision is stayed for 180 days.

Williams dissented.

Erik.

Mitch
12-11-2012, 10:29 AM
Clear win.

Illinois, unfortunately, is going to respond with an extremely restrictive may-issue law, and round-and-round it'll go.

Maybe not. This might be what is required for the Illinois legislature to pass shall issue. Cf: Despite heated opposition, Illinois seems poised to legalize concealed carry (http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=212738)

According to the spokesperson for Illinois Carry, Valinda Rowe, “in talking to the legislators, they’re wanting to see how the courts rule on two lawsuits.”

These lawsuits are Shepard vs. Madigan and Moore vs. Madigan, with Madigan being Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who represents the state. The plaintiffs in both of these cases allege that Illinois’ ban on carrying firearms in public is a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Ironically, Illinois might get shall issue before California does.

hornswaggled
12-11-2012, 10:30 AM
Sooo without jumping the gun, does this have bearing on the cases in the 9th? Also don't want to give up our game plan to the enemy.

stix213
12-11-2012, 10:31 AM
Not a lawyer, but didn't this just create a circuit split with the recent Kachalsky case decision?

pbreed
12-11-2012, 10:32 AM
How does this work in practice... 180 day stay...
If one carries concealed in Il and gets busted by the cops, what are they going to charge them with? A law already declared unconstitutional?

In effect doesn't this grant residents of Il Vermont style CCW until whatever new law is passed in 180 days? Not sure how you declare something unconstitutional and then prosecute someone under the statute?

Thoughts?

FrankW438
12-11-2012, 10:34 AM
Last year, we were about 3 votes short of having a SUPERMAJORITY to pass a shall-issue carry law with full pre-emption of local laws. I think we can rally enough votes to defeat and watered-down may-issue law.

As to level of scrutiny, we may get a few hints here:

The Supreme
Court has decided that the amendment confers
a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as
important outside the home as inside.



I think this may equate to Heller's level of scrutiny.

Untamed1972
12-11-2012, 10:35 AM
It looks like a smack down to me. They followed Heller and actually minded the portions about self-defense and noted that a right most acutely applying to the home doesn't mean it doesn't apply outside the home.

Just reading the quoted passages so far.....I would agree.....a total smack down!

And I applaud the judges for finally having some judicial and intellectual integrity to give the Heller & McD the weight they deserve!

Listen up CA......your time is coming! Do you see the handwriting on the wall yet?

FrankW438
12-11-2012, 10:37 AM
How does this work in practice... 180 day stay...
If one carries concealed in Il and gets busted by the cops, what are they going to charge them with? A law already declared unconstitutional?

In effect doesn't this grant residents of Il Vermont style CCW until whatever new law is passed in 180 days? Not sure how you declare something unconstitutional and then prosecute someone under the statute?

Thoughts?
I don't think so. The Unlawful Use of Weapons statute still stands. If the state doesn't amend the law to allow for lawful Right-To-Carry,then it will be unconstitutional.

gemoose23
12-11-2012, 10:37 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-us-appeals-court-strikes-down-states-concealedcarry-ban-20121211,0,7034171.story

Coded-Dude
12-11-2012, 10:39 AM
So this was another SAF/NRA joint case? (NRA-ILA?)

CitaDeL
12-11-2012, 10:41 AM
In before Brady Campaign claims this was a victory for their cause.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2012/12/victory-for-self-defense-and-the-second-amendment.aspx

todd2968
12-11-2012, 10:43 AM
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/Court-strikes-down-Illinois-concealed-carry-law-4108504.php



This is the last state!!! Now if we can get is RIGHT TO CARRY

stix213
12-11-2012, 10:43 AM
I'm thinking this is our biggest win since McDonald, and virtually gurantees carry rights get fast tracked to the SCOTUS.

asm777
12-11-2012, 10:44 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-us-appeals-court-strikes-down-states-concealedcarry-ban-20121211,0,7034171.story
Beat me to it!

"We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home. The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside," the judges ruled.
This is good!

Damn True
12-11-2012, 10:45 AM
Another piece on the same case.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/saf-wins-huge-victory-for-carry-in-illinois-2012-12-11

Untamed1972
12-11-2012, 10:46 AM
Beat me to it!


This is good!

Gotta love that statement......finally a Judge with the balls to tell the lower courts to quit eff'ing around and pretending like Heller doesnt say what it plainly says!

Librarian
12-11-2012, 10:52 AM
I like this bit - After quoting Masciandaro,Fair enough; but that “vast terra incognita” has been opened to judicial exploration by Heller and McDonald. There is no turning back by the lower federal courts, at p 19.

Untamed1972
12-11-2012, 10:53 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-us-appeals-court-strikes-down-states-concealedcarry-ban-20121211,0,7034171.story

“If we need to change the law, let us at least craft a law that is very severely constrained and narrowly tailored so that we don’t invite guns out of control on each of our city’s streets,” Currie said. “I don’t want people out of control wandering the streets with guns that are out of control.”

So in otherwords.....her intention is to try and pull that Ezell crap again and pass a law that basically makes any form of functional carry impossible. :rolleyes:

Hey lady.....you know what other states are doing? They're letting people carry guns nearly everywhere......and NOTHING has gotten out of control! Wake the EFF UP!!!

Crom
12-11-2012, 10:57 AM
This is the best news I've seen in months! Justice is served! :D

Maestro Pistolero
12-11-2012, 10:58 AM
This looks like a clear split with the reasoning in Kalchalsky, at least in terms of scrutiny, the public safety interest, and the recognition that concealed carry is the modern means of carry in most states.

ebourqui
12-11-2012, 10:59 AM
I am not a lawyer, nor an expert on the subject. Having said that, from a quick read of the decision, I gather that the court simply struck down the outright prohibition of concealed carry. They do see restrictions as to who can have a permit as acceptable:

New York “decided not to ban handgun possession, but to limit it to those individuals who have an actual reason (’proper cause’) to carry the weapon. In this vein , licensing is oriented to the Second Amendment’s protections…. [I ]nstead of forbidding anyone from carrying a handgun in public, New York took a more moderate approach to fulfilling its important objective and reasonably concluded that only individuals having a bona fide reason to possess handguns should be allowed to introduce them into the public sphere.”
The New York gun law upheld in Kachalsky, although one of the nation’s most restrictive such laws (under the law’s “proper cause” standard, an applicant for a gun permit must demonstrate a need for self-defense greater than that of the general public, such as being the target of personal threats, id. at *3, *8), is less restrictive than Illinois’s law.

as well as training requirements to be acceptable:

...some states sensibly require that an applicant for a handgun permit establish his competence in handling firearms. A person who carries a gun in public but is not well trained in the use of firearms is a menace to himself and others.

There's a ton of space between Illinois' law (complete prohibition of carry) and shall issue.

My guess is the Illinois policy will look something like "Any person with a police-documented near-death experience at the hands of another, plus a minimum 1200 hours of firearms training, will be allowed to apply for an Illinois concealed weapons permit."

yellowfin
12-11-2012, 10:59 AM
How soon will we see a cert petition for Kachalsky? Not a second too soon will it be for this to get stuffed sideways down New York's throat.

Kukuforguns
12-11-2012, 11:14 AM
I am not a lawyer, nor an expert on the subject. Having said that, from a quick read of the decision, I gather that the court simply struck down the outright prohibition of concealed carry. They do see restrictions as to who can have a permit as acceptable:



as well as training requirements to be acceptable:



There's a ton of space between Illinois' law (complete prohibition of carry) and shall issue.

My guess is the Illinois policy will look something like "Any person with a police-documented near-death experience at the hands of another, plus a minimum 1200 hours of firearms training, will be allowed to apply for an Illinois concealed weapons permit."The 7th Circuit noted that New York's ban on public bearing of arms was more moderate than Illinois' complete ban. However, the majority opinion then criticized (gently) the Kachalsky analysis. I think Posner is trying to subtly advise the Illinois legislature that a licensing scheme that denies virtually all law-abiding people from public bearing will not fly.

Also, do read the dissent. I thought it was well done with regards to the S. Ct.'s language that precluding weapons in sensitive places is presumptively constitutional.

bubbapug1
12-11-2012, 11:17 AM
At least its in a better direction than most of the rulings over the last 20 years. Now if we don't get too many crazies taking out mass amounts of people on Army bases, campuses, and movie theaters we might actually get our gun rights back.

The worst part of the past recent slayings is the schools and Army knew they had issues with each one of the shooters, yet due to POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND FEAR OF PRIVACY CONCERNS, the shooters were allowed to vocalize their desire to kill mass amounts of people and walked free to do so.

The laws are in place to stop mass mayham, the desire and reporting mechanisms are just not there in some spheres of our society.

Bargearse
12-11-2012, 11:19 AM
Gotta love that statement......finally a Judge with the balls to tell the lower courts to quit eff'ing around and pretending like Heller doesnt say what it plainly says!

Gotta love that statement......finally a Judge with the balls full of LEAD to tell the lower courts to quit eff'ing around and pretending like Heller doesnt say what it plainly says!

Fix for ya!

dave_cg
12-11-2012, 11:24 AM
The fact that this came out in time for the 9th to have this shoved up their noses before ruling on Peruta and the others is interesting. The 9th now has a very stark choice -- rule consistently with the 7th, or open a circuit split a mile wide. Of course, I guess we already have a split with Kalchalsky -- I wonder if the 9th will try to thread the needle?

wilit
12-11-2012, 11:29 AM
I like they allowed an unconstitutional law to stand for an additional 180 days to allow the legislature to craft another unconstitutional law.

Good win though. Will be interesting to see if Illinois petitons SCOTUS or finds a work around with a new law.

Sent from the depths of the S3 Galaxy via Tapatalk 2

Ryan_D
12-11-2012, 11:34 AM
I'd be suprised if Illinois didn't go the way of CA and have a CCW statute in name only for all intents and purposes.

Dreaded Claymore
12-11-2012, 11:38 AM
This is an epic win.

So far, Chicago has been barely holding back the rising tide of support in Illinois for shall-issue carry licensing. I think this ruling just blew the dam.

2008: Heller.
2010: McDonald.
2012: Moore.
I can't wait to see what we do in 2014. After that, it'll just be a matter of mopping up the Wehrwolves.

Crom
12-11-2012, 11:38 AM
I just can't believe how awesome this decision is. The panel squarely dealt with the second amendment. No dancing around the issue, no coy tactics. It is pure 2A awesomeness. There is no doubt in my mind that this case is the biggest win we have had since 2010 in McDonald. It's pure joy. I'd quote some of it for you, but it's an easy read and everyone should take time to read it. It's not written in legalese.

:party:

Big congrats to David Sigale and SAF. Whoo Hoo!

kaligaran
12-11-2012, 11:38 AM
It'll be very interesting to see if they go shall issue.

elSquid
12-11-2012, 11:42 AM
I like they allowed an unconstitutional law to stand for an additional 180 days to allow the legislature to craft another unconstitutional law.

What happens if the legislature cannot come up with a law in said 180 days?

What happens if the pro-gun elements delay, disagree, etc and nothing is passed, the judgement kicks in, the law is unconstitutional - people suddenly have the right to carry outside of the home - and there is no permit requirement codified in the state...does that mean Vermont/Constitutional Carry?

I wonder if that 180-day ticking time bomb is enough to actually drive the anti-gunners to strive for actual consensus?

-- Michael

Maestro Pistolero
12-11-2012, 11:48 AM
It is awesome, but any language suggesting that a fundamental right can be denied to all but those with an elevated "need" is indeed disturbing. How on earth can a fundamental right be reserved for only a select few? Bearing is either a rights-based activity, or a need-based activity. Its basis for protection cannot be both. As Gura has often said, "The Second Amendment is not located among a bill of needs.

Crom
12-11-2012, 11:50 AM
^Chris, what language you are referring to? The panel addressed NY law, but they said they disagreed with their reasoning.

hvengel
12-11-2012, 11:57 AM
"Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden."

Just to be clear the ruling did apply heightened scrutiny as the above quote clearly states that rational basis does not apply to this case. There were other places in the ruling that implied strict scrutiny was the standard for when self defense was what was being infringed, as was the case here, but I don't remember reading anywhere where this court said it applied to this case specifically since the reasons for the ban being raised by the state were only rational there was no reason for them to go there. But I think this will be seen as a strict scrutiny ruling by other courts.

Untamed1972
12-11-2012, 12:02 PM
I am not a lawyer, nor an expert on the subject. Having said that, from a quick read of the decision, I gather that the court simply struck down the outright prohibition of concealed carry. They do see restrictions as to who can have a permit as acceptable:



as well as training requirements to be acceptable:



There's a ton of space between Illinois' law (complete prohibition of carry) and shall issue.

My guess is the Illinois policy will look something like "Any person with a police-documented near-death experience at the hands of another, plus a minimum 1200 hours of firearms training, will be allowed to apply for an Illinois concealed weapons permit."

The thing is Heller/McD clearly made the 2A an individual right for ALL law-abiding citizens. This decisions then goes on to state that "bear" means outside the home and cannot be divorced from "the right to "keep". Therefore if ALL law-abiding citizens have a fundamental 2A right to keep.....how could any court justify "demonstrating need" to exercise the 2nd part. It could just never fly.

ilbob
12-11-2012, 12:07 PM
Last year, we were about 3 votes short of having a SUPERMAJORITY to pass a shall-issue carry law with full pre-emption of local laws. I think we can rally enough votes to defeat and watered-down may-issue law.

As to level of scrutiny, we may get a few hints here:




I think this may equate to Heller's level of scrutiny.
We only had it in the house. Who knows what would have happened in the senate and the governor promised to veto it.

Ryan_D
12-11-2012, 12:07 PM
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/robert-farago/nra-illinois-will-be-a-shall-issue-state/

SFgiants105
12-11-2012, 12:10 PM
At the very least, we need open carry back. I was appalled when I heard about that the first time. I was thinking "Really? Unloaded open carry is illegal?"

Just goes to show that for all the accusations against Republicans for using fear-based tactics in the political arena, Democrats use them just as much. Apparently, the average California voter doesn't understand the loopholes residents here have to jump through to obtain a legal firearm; if they did, they might reason that someone who legally owns a firearm in this state is not very likely to commit a a crime with that weapon

IrishPirate
12-11-2012, 12:11 PM
eh hem...........SUCK IT ANTI'S!!!!


Very happy to see that a court is finally saying "look, this is the way things are. You can't just ignore the parts of the Constitution you don't like." I hope this is used to further the Constitutional Carry battle plan and make it so that we can carry anywhere, anytime, ANY STATE!

mdimeo
12-11-2012, 12:13 PM
The fact that this came out in time for the 9th to have this shoved up their noses before ruling on Peruta and the others is interesting. The 9th now has a very stark choice -- rule consistently with the 7th, or open a circuit split a mile wide. Of course, I guess we already have a split with Kalchalsky -- I wonder if the 9th will try to thread the needle?

The 9th could easily rule that, unlike IL, CA doesn't have a complete ban on carrying, and that may-issue with not-completely-arbitrary good cause is sufficient. It wouldn't be a gigantic split. It would mean los angeles would have to dribble out a few permits every year (after a couple years of litigation, naturally), but wouldn't help peruta or richards at all.

socal2310
12-11-2012, 12:16 PM
It'll be very interesting to see if they go shall issue.

I'm praying for the Illinois legislature to either dither enough to prevent any legislation from making it through, or to go full retard and pass a law that is a slap in the face to the honorable Judge Posner.

Ryan

bwiese
12-11-2012, 12:18 PM
It'll be very interesting to see if they go shall issue.

Ultimately it will be "essentially shall issue" with fights around some trivia and bureaucratic behaviors.

IL will be at least Sacramento. Chicago will try every delay tactic and there may be more litigation for Chitown than rest of IL, but some of this may just resolve as state matter [a la state preemption], unsure. Remember IL is only a few legislative votes shy from carry.

1BigPea
12-11-2012, 12:21 PM
Oh I can't wait to see how the Brady's spin this one! "There will be blood flowing down the streets as wild lawless men run around with guns in both hands!"

The Brady's and gun banners just don't get it! When law abiding citizens legally carry concealed crime rates go DOWN!


This is an awesome win for RKBA!!! Way to get it right 7th!

pointedstick
12-11-2012, 12:23 PM
What happens if the legislature cannot come up with a law in said 180 days?

What happens if the pro-gun elements delay, disagree, etc and nothing is passed, the judgement kicks in, the law is unconstitutional - people suddenly have the right to carry outside of the home - and there is no permit requirement codified in the state...does that mean Vermont/Constitutional Carry?

I wonder if that 180-day ticking time bomb is enough to actually drive the anti-gunners to strive for actual consensus?

-- Michael



Winner winner chicken dinner. We've got them right where we want them now. Before this decision, we were begging them to sign onto our bill so we could get it passed with a supermajority. Now they'll be begging us to pass some bill, any bill to avoid court-imposed constitutional carry in six months.

We could hold that threat over the antis' heads and use it to roll back some of Illinois's other gun laws in exchange for passing a shall-issue law instead of letting constitutional carry happen.

speedrrracer
12-11-2012, 12:26 PM
It'll be very interesting to see if they go shall issue.

According to TTAG (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/robert-farago/nra-illinois-will-be-a-shall-issue-state/), the NRA claims it will be shall issue, citing the fact that they control both houses...


So when do the animated GIFs showing states allowing carry get updated? :D

FrankW438
12-11-2012, 12:28 PM
We only had it in the house. Who knows what would have happened in the senate and the governor promised to veto it.

This is true, Bob. But it only takes one house to block bad legislation. The possibility of appeals aside, the anti's don't want to play chicken with the "IL Carry Cliff." If they don't agree to what we want, we'll have Constitutional Carry on June 10th, 2013.

FrankW438
12-11-2012, 12:30 PM
Winner winner chicken dinner. We've got them right where we want them now. Before this decision, we were begging them to sign onto our bill so we could get it passed with a supermajority. Now they'll be begging us to pass some bill, any bill to avoid court-imposed constitutional carry in six months.

We could hold that threat over the antis' heads and use it to roll back some of Illinois's other gun laws in exchange for passing a shall-issue law instead of letting constitutional carry happen.

Great minds think alike! I didn't think about using this as leverage to repeal the FOID card...

safewaysecurity
12-11-2012, 12:32 PM
We only had it in the house. Who knows what would have happened in the senate and the governor promised to veto it.

Remember we had it in the Senate too! They just didn't have a veto proof super majority in the Senate. They were about 2-3 votes off I believe. But think about it. With this decision any of the people sitting on the fence with this issue they have an order from the court to do something. Now they can't make the "everywhere in Illinois BUT Chicago/Cook County" argument. We'e got them by the nuts. Pass an omnibus carry bill that has as few restrictions as possible and even loosens up some other gun restrictions in there as well because if they do nothing they will get an unfortunate court smackdown.

Untamed1972
12-11-2012, 12:32 PM
We only had it in the house. Who knows what would have happened in the senate and the governor promised to veto it.

The problem is that in 6 months, if they haven't passed something, this ruling kicks in and IL goes defacto Constitutional Carry....which I'm sure is their worst nightmare. So they're gonna hafta play ball if they want to have any say at all in what the carry rights will look like in that state.

Cuz all the pro-carry side needs to do is refuse to give in on stupid, ridiculous restrictions, knowing that defacto Constitutional Carry is just a ticking clock away!

Fyathyrio
12-11-2012, 12:34 PM
Great minds think alike! I didn't think about using this as leverage to repeal the FOID card...

Who was the nice lady from Ohio that wanted an FOID, and is her case still active? This might be a nice Christmas gift for her...and anybody else that might like to carry their weapon across a state line legally.

taperxz
12-11-2012, 12:37 PM
Something tells me that Grey Peterson and some of the CGF members may very well win their bets with those steak dinners pretty soon.

ayemossum
12-11-2012, 12:39 PM
Ok so today's 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Moore v. Madigan finds (as we all already know) that the 2nd Amendment applies to the right to carry firearms in public.

“...the right to keep and bear arms, itself, extends beyond the boundary of one’s front door."

“The Second Amendment,” Judge Posner writes, “states in its entirety that ‘a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’ The right to ‘bear’ as distinct from the right to ‘keep’ arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of ‘bearing’ arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home."

http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=415

Will this decision help us here, or will we have to wait for the case to inevitably be taken to SCOTUS?

Considering of course that the "may issue" law here is, in some counties (L.A., S.F., etc) "may issue" is "won't issue," meaning that carrying publicly is de facto banned, this decision should require a legislative change here (no, i do realize that i need oxygen and am not holding my breath).

Thoughts?

schneiderguy
12-11-2012, 12:41 PM
Great news :jump:

saint7
12-11-2012, 12:45 PM
I am a law illiterate and forgive me if this question may be nieve.... but will this open up doors for us here in California? I know right now in SB county it is a long wait for your CCW permit. Maybe this will open up doors to streamline the wait.

Untamed1972
12-11-2012, 12:48 PM
I am a law illiterate and forgive me if this question may be nieve.... but will this open up doors for us here in California? I know right now in SB county it is a long wait for your CCW permit. Maybe this will open up doors to streamline the wait.

not directly as we are in the 9th circuit here, this case was from the 7th. But it can be persuasive to the 9th as they are now reviewing the 2 carry cases here from CA.

I'm sure there will be some supplimental filings to the 9th to notify them of this decision and it's bearing on the CA cases.

hornswaggled
12-11-2012, 12:49 PM
Oh I can't wait to see how the Brady's spin this one! "There will be blood flowing down the streets as wild lawless men run around with guns in both hands!"

So business as usual in Chicago then.

LYU370
12-11-2012, 12:53 PM
Illinois, unfortunately, is going to respond with an extremely restrictive may-issue law, and round-and-round it'll go.

Not necessarily, I think we've got the anti's pissing their pants:

"The (Illinois) legislature, in the new session, will be forced to take up a statewide carry law," said NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde.

The lobbyist said prior attempts to reach a middle ground with opponents will no longer be necessary because "those compromises are going out the window."

And Rep. Phelps, who has pepeatedly introduced bills:

Phelps fought unsuccessfully in the House to pass concealed weapons legislation with a long set of restrictions, but he warned opponents of his legislation may regret they had not supported it when they had a chance. Now, he said, he “can’t see us” going forward with legislation that has as many restrictions as the bill that failed.

We'll see what happens, but I'm guessing we get a pretty good carry bill.

Andy

saint7
12-11-2012, 12:54 PM
Thanks Untamed1972.

hornswaggled
12-11-2012, 12:54 PM
Let's all move to Chi-town!

Never thought I'd say that.

uyoga
12-11-2012, 12:54 PM
Just read some of it... looks like a loss...


Yeah . . . . a loss to Illinois.

bruss01
12-11-2012, 12:55 PM
Is this decision possible to be cited in California counties or is the scope limited to Illinois state? My initial impression was this could only be cited in Illinois... Huge victory tho and really shows the impact of the Heller decision!

It can be cited as authoritative precedent in the 7th District.

It can be cited as "FYI" outside the District. Meaning it doesn't control the other district, but may influence it's reasoning somewhat. And also clue other districts that if they directly contradict, they're setting the stage for a Supreme Court battle to decide who's right.

safewaysecurity
12-11-2012, 1:00 PM
Yeah . . . . a loss to Illinois.

Edited my post :D

SilverBulletZ06
12-11-2012, 1:14 PM
Wow.. too bad this didn't come before Kachalsky. I don't know what everyone else is reading though. I'm just finishing the Kachalsky portion and basically Posner said that you cannot have a blanket ban, but the state deciding who most needs a permit is A-OK since it limits the persons who may carry.

CAL.BAR
12-11-2012, 1:18 PM
Clear win.

Illinois, unfortunately, is going to respond with an extremely restrictive may-issue law, and round-and-round it'll go.

Seems like not enough of a split against Kachalsky or Masciandaro to force supreme court review.

ETA: kalchasky/masciandaro summary is on page 17-19. Main holding P.20-21. Dissent starts on 21. I mostly skimmed
before about 15, but it's basically heller-style historical analysis, as is the dissent.

EXACTLY. The court gave the legislature 180 days and essentially said "re-write this thing so as to pass constitutional muster" So they will, and thus will end the chapter. Once you get around the per se ban, and impose ludicrous limits and hoops to jump through, no court will second guess the regulation. You are NEVER going to see "shall issue" in Ill. or NY or CA. Period.

safewaysecurity
12-11-2012, 1:18 PM
Wow.. too bad this didn't come before Kachalsky. I don't know what everyone else is reading though. I'm just finishing the Kachalsky portion and basically Posner said that you cannot have a blanket ban, but the state deciding who most needs a permit is A-OK since it limits the persons who may carry.

They also said the need for being armed in the dangerous neighborhood of Chicago is greater than the need to be armed at home. So the standard would be if you can own a gun then you can carry. Defacto shall-issue. It would be nice to see them pass a simple law since Chicago has FOID just to say if you have an FOID that you can carry. But we all know hey will most likely have a training requirement of some sort whether that includes live-fire I wouldn't know.

CalBear
12-11-2012, 1:20 PM
Wow.. too bad this didn't come before Kachalsky. I don't know what everyone else is reading though. I'm just finishing the Kachalsky portion and basically Posner said that you cannot have a blanket ban, but the state deciding who most needs a permit is A-OK since it limits the persons who may carry.
Don't read into it so much. The court merely compared Illinois law to some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation to make the point that the Illinois law is unacceptable by every standard imaginable. This does not mean the ruling rubber stamps may issue laws. It just says even those are less restrictive than the IL law.

taperxz
12-11-2012, 1:22 PM
Don't read into it so much. The court merely compared Illinois law to some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation to make the point that the Illinois law is unacceptable by every standard imaginable. This does not mean the ruling rubber stamps may issue laws. It just says even those are less restrictive than the IL law.

This sort of ruling should help out the Hawaii case i would imagine.

SilverBulletZ06
12-11-2012, 1:23 PM
This sort of ruling should help out the Hawaii case i would imagine.

Hawaii dismissed today.

randomBytes
12-11-2012, 1:24 PM
This was a pretty no-nonsense panel - but my favorite quote:

It is not a property right—a right to kill a houseguest who in a fit of aesthetic fury tries to slash your copy of Norman Rockwell’s painting Santa with Elves. That is not self-defense, and this case like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense.

taperxz
12-11-2012, 1:25 PM
Hawaii dismissed today.

Link to that by chance?

advocatusdiaboli
12-11-2012, 1:29 PM
EXACTLY. The court gave the legislature 180 days and essentially said "re-write this thing so as to pass constitutional muster" So they will, and thus will end the chapter. Once you get around the per se ban, and impose ludicrous limits and hoops to jump through, no court will second guess the regulation. You are NEVER going to see "shall issue" in Ill. or NY or CA. Period.

I think your are correct and, as much as I detest that reality, we need to deal with it.

hoffmang
12-11-2012, 1:39 PM
Something tells me that Grey Peterson and some of the CGF members may very well win their bets with those steak dinners pretty soon.
Those are going to be tasty steaks.
EXACTLY. The court gave the legislature 180 days and essentially said "re-write this thing so as to pass constitutional muster" So they will, and thus will end the chapter. Once you get around the per se ban, and impose ludicrous limits and hoops to jump through, no court will second guess the regulation. You are NEVER going to see "shall issue" in Ill. or NY or CA. Period.

Wanna bet a steak? See, the problem here is that you would have bet me that no carry law would be struck, yet here we are.

The minimum constitutional standard for "bear arms" will be the ability to carry a loaded handgun most places after meeting objective licensing standards and in the manner that the legislature requires. That's the minimum and it will include Madison Ave, Manhattan, NY.

-Gene

pointedstick
12-11-2012, 1:42 PM
EXACTLY. The court gave the legislature 180 days and essentially said "re-write this thing so as to pass constitutional muster" So they will, and thus will end the chapter. Once you get around the per se ban, and impose ludicrous limits and hoops to jump through, no court will second guess the regulation. You are NEVER going to see "shall issue" in Ill. or NY or CA. Period.

I don't believe that's true. Pro-gun forces have a majority in the Illinois legislature. They're short of the supermajority needed to override the anti-gun governor, but with this ruling, they don't need a supermajority. They don't even need to vote at all! If they simply stonewall for 6 months, IL goes constitutional carry. Let it sink in a bit. That possibility is so terrifying to the anti-gun governor and Chicago legislators that if they have any shred of sense, they will beat a path to the pro-gun legislators' doors in a frantic effort to pass anything at all short of constitutional carry to prevent the court's ruling from taking effect.

Prior to this ruling, IL anti-gun forces won the waiting game. Now we do. It's a game-changer. They now have to beg us to support something they hate in order to prevent being utterly crushed by the court. That gives us power. We can now demand other concessions, too. Perhaps they would be willing to get rid of the FOID card rather than allow constitutional carry. See? We have leverage!

CAL.BAR
12-11-2012, 1:54 PM
Those are going to be tasty steaks.


Wanna bet a steak? See, the problem here is that you would have bet me that no carry law would be struck, yet here we are.

The minimum constitutional standard for "bear arms" will be the ability to carry a loaded handgun most places after meeting objective licensing standards and in the manner that the legislature requires. That's the minimum and it will include Madison Ave, Manhattan, NY.

-Gene

So Gene, are you saying that ILL, the most anti-gun state around, is simply going to let this 180 days lapse and NOT re-write the law to allow some limited application so it passes muster? See I'm betting that a "some" carry law will not be struck. NO carry at all is constitutionally difficult, but yet, here in CA the vast majority of us will NEVER see a CCW and yet, no one is anywhere close to overturning the Sheriff's perrogative. So why wouldn't ILL simply put together a draconian policy and say good luck. Just like DOC did after Heller.

safewaysecurity
12-11-2012, 1:55 PM
EXACTLY. The court gave the legislature 180 days and essentially said "re-write this thing so as to pass constitutional muster" So they will, and thus will end the chapter. Once you get around the per se ban, and impose ludicrous limits and hoops to jump through, no court will second guess the regulation. You are NEVER going to see "shall issue" in Ill. or NY or CA. Period.

We won't see shall-issue in Illinois? The state where they were 2-3 votes shy of a super majority to pass shall-issue very recently? Where the NRA has already said they have the votes for Shall-Issue. Here's my prediction and you can take it to the Bank. Illinois goes Shall-Issue before California, New York, Massachusetts, D.C, New Jersey, and Hawaii.

CalBear
12-11-2012, 2:00 PM
So Gene, are you saying that ILL, the most anti-gun state around, is simply going to let this 180 days lapse and NOT re-write the law to allow some limited application so it passes muster? See I'm betting that a "some" carry law will not be struck. NO carry at all is constitutionally difficult, but yet, here in CA the vast majority of us will NEVER see a CCW and yet, no one is anywhere close to overturning the Sheriff's perrogative. So why wouldn't ILL simply put together a draconian policy and say good luck. Just like DOC did after Heller.
The problem is you assume the anti gun forces in Chicago control the Illinois state legislature. The legislature almost got a decent shall issue bill through with the required 3/5 majority in their last attempt. Why on Earth would they put through a may issue rat's nest now when inaction after 180 days would default to constitutional carry? This ruling is only going to make the next carry bill proposal stronger, because the pro gun forces hold the cards now.

M. D. Van Norman
12-11-2012, 2:00 PM
Ironic, isn’t it? :o

defcon
12-11-2012, 2:01 PM
I am a law illiterate and forgive me if this question may be nieve.... but will this open up doors for us here in California? I know right now in SB county it is a long wait for your CCW permit. Maybe this will open up doors to streamline the wait.



http://flapsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/Feinstein2.jpg

Kukuforguns
12-11-2012, 2:03 PM
So Gene, are you saying that ILL, the most anti-gun state around, is simply going to let this 180 days lapse and NOT re-write the law to allow some limited application so it passes muster? See I'm betting that a "some" carry law will not be struck. NO carry at all is constitutionally difficult, but yet, here in CA the vast majority of us will NEVER see a CCW and yet, no one is anywhere close to overturning the Sheriff's perrogative. So why wouldn't ILL simply put together a draconian policy and say good luck. Just like DOC did after Heller.
Yes, Illinois will pass a carry law before the 180 days expire. However, it will be less onerous than California's current concealed carry process. Posner as much as told the Illinois legislature that a law similar to New York's will not pass Constitutional muster. Moreover, for political reasons already discussed above, the pro-gun legislators in Illinois now have very good bargaining power when it comes to drafting the law.

As it currently stands, Illinois will have shall-issue carry before California. What a world.

mdimeo
12-11-2012, 2:07 PM
So Gene, are you saying that ILL, the most anti-gun state around, is simply going to let this 180 days lapse and NOT re-write the law to allow some limited application so it passes muster?

IL is not the most anti-gun state. It does contain perhaps the most anti-gun metro area, but statewide, there's a pro-gun majority.

defcon
12-11-2012, 2:09 PM
someone buy this judge a steak and beer.

miztic
12-11-2012, 2:09 PM
I don't think the pro-gun people in the IL legislature are pro-gun to the level of holding out for "foid card" carry*, they'll want to pass something too.
But there should be enough sensible state reps to hold out for a good shall issue bill.


* IL requires a FOID card to even own (or in stores touch) a gun, so even if the ruling goes into full effect, IL still won't be constitutional carry, you still have to get a FOID card, which all things considered is pretty easy to get, $10 + photo, they do a background check and 4-6 weeks later, you get your card and can go shopping.

CAL.BAR
12-11-2012, 2:11 PM
The problem is you assume the anti gun forces in Chicago control the Illinois state legislature. The legislature almost got a decent shall issue bill through with the required 3/5 majority in their last attempt. Why on Earth would they put through a may issue rat's nest now when inaction after 180 days would default to constitutional carry? This ruling is only going to make the next carry bill proposal stronger, because the pro gun forces hold the cards now.

Well I admit I have no idea of the make up of the ILL legislature, but given they have among the most restrictive gun laws in the country, I'll bet they are pretty anti-gun and so are most of the voting public (i.e. most of Chicago) SO assuming this, if the anti's want to keep guns out of the hands of its people (as I assume they do given the laws) they will draft a very restrictive carry law (or narrowly interpret constitutional carry and viola - you have Orange County. NO ONE gets CCW's, but we all have the chance to apply. Virtually unassailable for a constitutional standpoint and they still win b/c no one gets the guns. Just a logical argument. You may be right that the conservatives are storming the gates and may impose shall issue some day, but I'm not holding my breath.

safewaysecurity
12-11-2012, 2:14 PM
The problem is you assume the anti gun forces in Chicago control the Illinois state legislature. The legislature almost got a decent shall issue bill through with the required 3/5 majority in their last attempt. Why on Earth would they put through a may issue rat's nest now when inaction after 180 days would default to constitutional carry? This ruling is only going to make the next carry bill proposal stronger, because the pro gun forces hold the cards now.

Why does everyone assume there will be automatic constitutional carry in 180 days? They simply said the decision is stayed for 180 days before the lower district court has to deal with it. Couldn't the lower district court say. Well it's been 180 days and no new law so I will determine the constitutional minimum?

pointedstick
12-11-2012, 2:17 PM
Well I admit I have no idea of the make up of the ILL legislature, but given they have among the most restrictive gun laws in the country, I'll bet they are pretty anti-gun and so are most of the voting public (i.e. most of Chicago) SO assuming this, if the anti's want to keep guns out of the hands of its people (as I assume they do given the laws) they will draft a very restrictive carry law (or narrowly interpret constitutional carry and viola - you have Orange County.

You don't seem to understand that Illinois pro-gun forces have a legislative majority. The only reason why IL isn't ALREADY shall-issue is because the anti-gun governor vetoes their bills and therefore requires a supermajority, which they don't quite have. If the anti-gun minority drafts an insulting may-issue bill in order to stave off virtual constitutional carry, the pro-gun majority will laugh in their faces.

The game has changed. Time is now on our side. They have to beg us.

CalBear
12-11-2012, 2:18 PM
Why does everyone assume there will be automatic constitutional carry in 180 days? They simply said the decision is stayed for 180 days before the lower district court has to deal with it. Couldn't the lower district court say. Well it's been 180 days and no new law so I will determine the constitutional minimum?
It seemed pretty explicit in the final portion of the ruling that the panel was remanding the case to the district court for permanent injunction and a statement of unconstitutionality. Sure seems to me like the carry law is going to be tossed after 180 days.

Regulus
12-11-2012, 2:18 PM
http://flapsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/Feinstein2.jpg

Thanks defcon... My coffee just came out of every orifice on my face and I don't care. You just made my day.

safewaysecurity
12-11-2012, 2:19 PM
Well I admit I have no idea of the make up of the ILL legislature, but given they have among the most restrictive gun laws in the country, I'll bet they are pretty anti-gun and so are most of the voting public (i.e. most of Chicago) SO assuming this, if the anti's want to keep guns out of the hands of its people (as I assume they do given the laws) they will draft a very restrictive carry law (or narrowly interpret constitutional carry and viola - you have Orange County. NO ONE gets CCW's, but we all have the chance to apply. Virtually unassailable for a constitutional standpoint and they still win b/c no one gets the guns. Just a logical argument. You may be right that the conservatives are storming the gates and may impose shall issue some day, but I'm not holding my breath.

Where do you get that that Illinois has the most restrictive gun laws in the country? They are probably not even top 10. You can own ARs and AKs with 30 round mags and no bullet button crap in Illinois outside of Cook County. I would much rather have the Illinois Legislature than the one here in Cali.

Crom
12-11-2012, 2:19 PM
So this was another SAF/NRA joint case? (NRA-ILA?)

Not really. They were separate cases litigating the same thing but in different district courts within IL. However they were combined on appeal. Moore was an SAF funded case and Shepard was an NRA/ISRA funded case if it matters to you.

Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788
MICHAEL MOORE, et al., and
MARY E. SHEPARD, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs.

LISA MADIGAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF ILLINOIS, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Courts for the
Central District of Illinois and the Southern District of Illinois.
Nos. 3:11-cv-3134-SEM-BGC and 3:11-cv-405-WDS-PMF—

safewaysecurity
12-11-2012, 2:23 PM
It seemed pretty explicit in the final portion of the ruling that the panel was remanding the case to the district court for permanent injunction and a statement of unconstitutionality. Sure seems to me like the carry law is going to be tossed after 180 days.

They said the total ban was unconstitutional but that doesn't mean the court will just say "180 days are up, no carry laws, carry guns openly or concealed even into state prisons." If that was the case the repubs could use this as an opportunity to seriously repeal virtually every gun law on the books with the threat of just letting constitutional carry be the law of Illinois.

Untamed1972
12-11-2012, 2:23 PM
So Gene, are you saying that ILL, the most anti-gun state around, is simply going to let this 180 days lapse and NOT re-write the law to allow some limited application so it passes muster? See I'm betting that a "some" carry law will not be struck. NO carry at all is constitutionally difficult, but yet, here in CA the vast majority of us will NEVER see a CCW and yet, no one is anywhere close to overturning the Sheriff's perrogative. So why wouldn't ILL simply put together a draconian policy and say good luck. Just like DOC did after Heller.

Did you see the B-slapping that chicago got in Ezell for trying to do that with their shooting range ban BS?

Every time they try that crap they just piss off the courts more and tighten the noose around their own neck.

putput
12-11-2012, 2:28 PM
Call me an optimist but I feel compelled to update my pre-completed California Concealed Carry application....

Correct me if I'm wrong but if the 9th Circuit rules in a similar fashion, we should all be lining up orderly and single file at the Sheriff's office, right? :D

hoffmang
12-11-2012, 2:31 PM
Folks,

Courts don't get to write laws - only strike them. The law that would be struck on day 181 is the law that makes it a crime to carry a loaded handgun openly or concealed. If there is no new law passed or if the Governor vetos a good law, Illinois becomes Vermont.

Yes really - as a matter of law.

-Gene

Maestro Pistolero
12-11-2012, 2:31 PM
^Chris, what language you are referring to? The panel addressed NY law, but they said they disagreed with their reasoning.

I was responding prematurely to the language that described the NY statute as more moderate than the Illinois ban. I initially took that as approval. Having now read the decision, I see that the majority was disapproving (if a bit gently) of the NY decision. I do wish the criticism were more forceful, but at least the panel's disagreement is in the text.

putput
12-11-2012, 2:33 PM
Oh boy wouldn't that be fun!

Folks,

Courts don't get to write laws - only strike them. The law that would be struck on day 181 is the law that makes it a crime to carry a loaded handgun openly or concealed. If there is no new law passed or if the Governor vetos a good law, Illinois becomes Vermont.

Yes really - as a matter of law.

-Gene

Clownpuncher
12-11-2012, 2:33 PM
Ok, dumb question. With this decision being pretty clear in stating that carry is a right outside the home will it have any impact in the legislation requiring states to honor each others CCW permits? Will this perhaps give the legislation a push over the hump so a Florida permit is good in XXXXX state?
Of course this is all for legislation consideration after we Thelma and Louise off the "fiscal cliff"

CalBear
12-11-2012, 2:36 PM
Folks,

Courts don't get to write laws - only strike them. The law that would be struck on day 181 is the law that makes it a crime to carry a loaded handgun openly or concealed. If there is no new law passed or if the Governor vetos a good law, Illinois becomes Vermont.

Yes really - as a matter of law.

-Gene
That's what I thought. Thanks for clarifying.

Kukuforguns
12-11-2012, 2:37 PM
I was responding prematurely to the language that described the NY statute as more moderate than the Illinois ban. I initially took that as approval. Having now read the decision, I see that the majority was disapproving (if a bit gently) of the NY decision. I do wish the criticism were more forceful, but at least the panel's disagreement is in the text.You have to realize something about Federal Appellate Judges. There are very few of them. They know each other. They go to the same conferences. They like each other. They do not call their peers idiots. They explain why they arrive at a different conclusion than their peers.

Like all generalizations, there are exceptions to the above. For example, Posner and Scalia have little love for each other.

stix213
12-11-2012, 2:40 PM
Ok, dumb question. With this decision being pretty clear in stating that carry is a right outside the home will it have any impact in the legislation requiring states to honor each others CCW permits? Will this perhaps give the legislation a push over the hump so a Florida permit is good in XXXXX state?
Of course this is all for legislation consideration after we Thelma and Louise off the "fiscal cliff"

I'm sure this case will be especially useful to at least get carry permits issued to nonresidents for states in the 7th.

Untamed1972
12-11-2012, 2:40 PM
Ok, dumb question. With this decision being pretty clear in stating that carry is a right outside the home will it have any impact in the legislation requiring states to honor each others CCW permits? Will this perhaps give the legislation a push over the hump so a Florida permit is good in XXXXX state?
Of course this is all for legislation consideration after we Thelma and Louise off the "fiscal cliff"

I would think at a minimum in states that require a permit, it would require them to issue permits to non-residents if they do not already do so.

I think give it several more years after all states have gone shall-issue/ConCarry, etc and it just becomes more accepted most states will prolly realize its more of a pain in the arse to try and micromanage it and it will go the way of a drivers license, you just have to have one from somewhere.

safewaysecurity
12-11-2012, 2:41 PM
Folks,

Courts don't get to write laws - only strike them. The law that would be struck on day 181 is the law that makes it a crime to carry a loaded handgun openly or concealed. If there is no new law passed or if the Governor vetos a good law, Illinois becomes Vermont.

Yes really - as a matter of law.

-Gene

Well then... the NRA needs to take full advantage of what I stated :43: Repeal FOID, repeal all Chicago gun laws and implement state firearm pre-emption similar to Florida. Repeal waiting periods, tear that "gun show loophole" even wider haha. We need to rollback as much as possible. The anti-gunners literally have no choice. They will practically be forced to beg for ONLY shall-issue legislation and for us not to touch their other anti-gun accomplishments.

safewaysecurity
12-11-2012, 2:43 PM
I was responding prematurely to the language that described the NY statute as more moderate than the Illinois ban. I initially took that as approval. Having now read the decision, I see that the majority was disapproving (if a bit gently) of the NY decision. I do wish the criticism were more forceful, but at least the panel's disagreement is in the text.

You could say that Pol Pot was more moderate than Hitler but that doesn't mean you approve. The reasoning of the Kachalsky opinion was highly criticized for basically ignoring Heller and utilizing what was effectively rational basis.

stix213
12-11-2012, 2:47 PM
The antis have at least one card to play from my estimation. Without a state shall issue law, I think Chicago can create their own ccw system, which would only pretend to be fair. The pro gunnies need to get the shall issue law passed with language to prevent that, unless I'm wrong.

pointedstick
12-11-2012, 2:47 PM
Well then... the NRA needs to take full advantage of what I stated :43: Repeal FOID, repeal all Chicago gun laws and implement state firearm pre-emption similar to Florida. Repeal waiting periods, tear that "gun show loophole" even wider haha. We need to rollback as much as possible. The anti-gunners literally have no choice. They will practically be forced to beg for ONLY shall-issue legislation and for us not to touch their other anti-gun accomplishments.

Victory sure tastes sweet, doesn't it? :D

Maestro Pistolero
12-11-2012, 2:49 PM
You have to realize something about Federal Appellate Judges. There are very few of them. They know each other. They go to the same conferences. They like each other. They do not call their peers idiots. They explain why they arrive at a different conclusion than their peers.

Like all generalizations, there are exceptions to the above. For example, Posner and Scalia have little love for each other.

Maybe that congeniality could be the new model for interaction on calguns. We could also look at the grace with which Alan Gottlieb disagrees with his most vociferous opponents.

Ok, quickly now, back to the topic ;):

This decision may be all the cover that the Il legislature needs to finally act on shall-issue. if they're smart, they'll just do it and blame it on the court, if they must.

Crom
12-11-2012, 2:50 PM
I was responding prematurely to the language that described the NY statute as more moderate than the Illinois ban. Having read the decision, I see that the majority was disapproving (is a bit gently) of the NY decision. I do wish the criticism were more forceful, but at least the panel's disagreement is in the text.

No worries. I thought I may have missed something. ;) I'm still elated over this great victory. :D I think this decision will help inform the 9th Cir. in Peruta and Richards. I am optimistic (and praying) that we win in the 9th.

Ten months ago I speculated that (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=539438) we had a decent chance to win carry in the Appellate Courts. ;) It sure feels good to have another win.

CalBear
12-11-2012, 2:53 PM
The antis have at least one card to play from my estimation. Without a state shall issue law, I think Chicago can create their own ccw system, which would only pretend to be fair. The pro gunnies need to get the shall issue law passed with language to prevent that, unless I'm wrong.
I believe you are correct. Illinois has a system of home rule units, where cities and counties that are sufficiently large are given a huge amount of power over their jurisdictions. The state can only overrule their laws by passing legislation that specifically applies to home rule units with 3/5 majority in both houses of the legislature.

safewaysecurity
12-11-2012, 3:01 PM
I believe you are correct. Illinois has a system of home rule units, where cities and counties that are sufficiently large are given a huge amount of power over their jurisdictions. The state can only overrule their laws by passing legislation that specifically applies to home rule units with 3/5 majority in both houses of the legislature.

Yeah, knowing what we know I don't think the NRA will let that fly. They are going to establish state preemption of some sort whether it's just for concealed carry or gun laws in general. They have almost all the power now. As long as they have 51% of the votes in at least the senate or the house then they could just refuse to vote on any bill that doesn't include the right reforms and I think they might have that 51% that will support major pro-gun reforms.

Mulay El Raisuli
12-11-2012, 3:04 PM
I just can't believe how awesome this decision is. The panel squarely dealt with the second amendment. No dancing around the issue, no coy tactics. It is pure 2A awesomeness. There is no doubt in my mind that this case is the biggest win we have had since 2010 in McDonald. It's pure joy. I'd quote some of it for you, but it's an easy read and everyone should take time to read it. It's not written in legalese.

:party:

Big congrats to David Sigale and SAF. Whoo Hoo!


Yes, it IS written so that an Ordinary Mortal can read/understand it. That's pretty unusual for an Appellate Court.

And, yes, it is especially gratifying that it was a pure a 2A case. No dancing around at all.

As for references to Kachalski, it delivered as big a smack-down to the 2nd Circuit as one Circuit gets with another. Clearly written to be a Circuit split. Which we're going to have & need.

Because all of the speculation about what kind of law the Ill. legislature will write is meaningless. Rahm is the mayor & so Rahm will make the decision as to whether to appeal or not. You can bet your lungs on it; he'll appeal. Which (as was the case with Heller & McDonald) is going to be a good thing for us.

The reasoning here may or may not help with the PRK carry cases. Nothing here is binding, but it is persuasive. If the 9th goes along, we'll still have a split because of the 2nd Circuit.

There's not a lot of time for anything to affect the reciprocity Bill. But, it MAY provide 'cover' to those on the fence IF it does come to a vote.

I especially liked the bit about how the other 49 states do things. Nothing here will matter to the PRK legislature, but the gong has been sounded; crap that applies in one state only ain't gonna fly for much longer.

Its not often that that I laugh out loud while reading Appellate Court Opinions, but this one giot me doing so twice: I'm with randomBytes in liking the reference to slashing a "Santa with Elves" painting. But my favorite was the reference to sex on the sidewalk. THAT one is definite keeper. It supported the logic of that part of the Finding AND was real damn funny.


The Raisuli

Now, where is KCBrown to tell us all why this is really just a massive loss?

Stonewalker
12-11-2012, 3:06 PM
What an unmititgated win this was! As IrishPirate has already said - SUCK IT ANTIS. This is the smackdown we've all been waiting for since Heller. All those *****footing lower courts, all those let downs and 1-steps-forward-and-3-steps-back, all those lying, conniving, cowardly anti-gun judges - and finally a panel steps up and stops the BS. How is it that only the 7th circuit has judges with integrity??

Good lord, I feel great. What a great day!

Kukuforguns
12-11-2012, 3:10 PM
Earlier in the thread someone posted that Hawaii dismissed. But I see some evidence that plaintiff in the Hawaii case has filed supplemental authority (http://www.scribd.com/doc/116464598/Notice-of-Supplemental-Authority-Madigan) citing Moore v. Madigan. So, any confirmation on the dismissal?

stix213
12-11-2012, 3:17 PM
Yeah, knowing what we know I don't think the NRA will let that fly. They are going to establish state preemption of some sort whether it's just for concealed carry or gun laws in general. They have almost all the power now. As long as they have 51% of the votes in at least the senate or the house then they could just refuse to vote on any bill that doesn't include the right reforms and I think they might have that 51% that will support major pro-gun reforms.

I agree, and I would think there are plenty of legislators from outside the major cities who would want shall issue over no permit needed. I just hope the pro-gun side doesn't over play their cards trying to hold out for more than they can get, and in doing so allows Chicago to go back to their old tricks.

For their sake at least, I don't live there.

(on a side note, I just saw in my work e-mail the title "IT Alert: Illinois Office" and for some reason checked it in case it was relevant lol, nope just internal stuff haha)

todd2968
12-11-2012, 3:17 PM
I'd be suprised if Illinois didn't go the way of CA and have a CCW statute in name only for all intents and purposes.

As a resident of the state of Illinois (only stationed in Ca).

They can draft legislation all day but outside of Chicago sheriffs will grant CCW all day long. Back when they tried to make it a law the had the full support of most of the sheriffs outside of Chicago and even volunteered to hold trial CCW's in Peoria (central IL).

Rock On !!!!!

Mulay El Raisuli
12-11-2012, 3:21 PM
Folks,

Courts don't get to write laws - only strike them. The law that would be struck on day 181 is the law that makes it a crime to carry a loaded handgun openly or concealed. If there is no new law passed or if the Governor vetos a good law, Illinois becomes Vermont.

Yes really - as a matter of law.

-Gene


That's my take as well.

So, being that this is how things work, I have a question for all those gloating about how gunnies can now force the Ill. legislature to write a decent "Shall Issue" CCW law:

Why would you want to? No new law on the books means that Constitutional Carry becomes the law of the land in the Land of Lincoln. Giving Ill. residents the freest possible exercise of the Right. Why on earth would any decent gunnie want anything less than that?


The Raisuli

M. D. Van Norman
12-11-2012, 3:28 PM
We may not, but legislators will.

pointedstick
12-11-2012, 3:28 PM
That's my take as well.

So, being that this is how things work, I have a question for all those gloating about how gunnies can now force the Ill. legislature to write a decent "Shall Issue" CCW law:

Why would you want to? No new law on the books means that Constitutional Carry becomes the law of the land in the Land of Lincoln. Giving Ill. residents the freest possible exercise of the Right. Why on earth would any decent gunnie want anything less than that?


The Raisuli

It's all about what the Antis want to give us. FOID + virtual constitutional carry is now the default choice if they don't get a bill passed. We might be able to trade constitutional carry for permitted carry, but get rid of FOID cards, or enact pre-emption, or whatever else we want. At this point, if the Antis balk, all we have to do is remind them that if no bill is passed, we get universal permitless carry for FOID holders. It's all about what they're willing to do to avoid that, and we'll find out soon enough! :D

Untamed1972
12-11-2012, 3:29 PM
That's my take as well.

So, being that this is how things work, I have a question for all those gloating about how gunnies can now force the Ill. legislature to write a decent "Shall Issue" CCW law:

Why would you want to? No new law on the books means that Constitutional Carry becomes the law of the land in the Land of Lincoln. Giving Ill. residents the freest possible exercise of the Right. Why on earth would any decent gunnie want anything less than that?


The Raisuli

Because perhaps without the legislated protection of a CCW there would be things like a rash of "disturbing the peace" arrests by Chicago PD as retribution. Just a thought. Do you really trust them to respect the right when it's now just in a completely undefined, nebulous state?

CAL.BAR
12-11-2012, 3:31 PM
IL is not the most anti-gun state. It does contain perhaps the most anti-gun metro area, but statewide, there's a pro-gun majority.

That's NOT what their laws or voting record indicate.

Mitch
12-11-2012, 3:33 PM
This just arrived in my mailbox from NRL-ILA:

"The National Rifle Association is funding this case. The Illinois State Rifle Association is a co-plaintiff in this case."

What was SAF's involvement?

dave_cg
12-11-2012, 3:33 PM
Why on earth would any decent gunnie want anything less than that?

This is politics. Everybody in the Il legislature has their own little chess game going, and guns are only one little piece of that. To the legislators, this ruling is a big pile of trading stock, and they are working up their letters to Santa right now.

What I'm saying is a legislator is going to get more of what *he* wants by horsetrading a little while assembling a bill.

Coded-Dude
12-11-2012, 3:42 PM
Not really. They were separate cases litigating the same thing but in different district courts within IL. However they were combined on appeal. Moore was an SAF funded case and Shepard was an NRA/ISRA funded case if it matters to you.

Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788
MICHAEL MOORE, et al., and
MARY E. SHEPARD, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs.

LISA MADIGAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF ILLINOIS, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Courts for the
Central District of Illinois and the Southern District of Illinois.
Nos. 3:11-cv-3134-SEM-BGC and 3:11-cv-405-WDS-PMF—

This just arrived in my mailbox from NRL-ILA:

"The National Rifle Association is funding this case. The Illinois State Rifle Association is a co-plaintiff in this case."

What was SAF's involvement?

See the quote above.

wildhawker
12-11-2012, 3:45 PM
This just arrived in my mailbox from NRL-ILA:

"The National Rifle Association is funding this case. The Illinois State Rifle Association is a co-plaintiff in this case."

What was SAF's involvement?

On 5/12/11, SAF filed and funded the case Moore v. Madigan http://ia600603.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.docket.html. On 5/13/11, NRA filed a similar case, Shepard v. Madigan. Both cases were addressed in today's opinion (at http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/moore/12-1269-Moore-Opinion-2012-12-11.pdf).

Alan Gura's oral argument at CA7: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/moore/12-1269-Moore-2012-06-08.mp3

-Brandon

Luieburger
12-11-2012, 3:46 PM
No new law on the books means that Constitutional Carry becomes the law of the land in the Land of Lincoln. Giving Ill. residents the freest possible exercise of the Right. Why on earth would any decent gunnie want anything less than that?
The Raisuli

No gunnie wants less than that, but Chicago will likely make their own carry laws if they aren't preempted by the state. Chicago could end up being almost may-issue, and a big chunk of the Illinois population is in Chicago. Illinois could have passed shall-issue long ago if they didn't care about Chicago.

nicki
12-11-2012, 3:48 PM
Folks,

Courts don't get to write laws - only strike them. The law that would be struck on day 181 is the law that makes it a crime to carry a loaded handgun openly or concealed. If there is no new law passed or if the Governor vetos a good law, Illinois becomes Vermont.

Yes really - as a matter of law.

-Gene

I don't see Illinois not trying to go en-banc, if for no other reason than to stall.

Let's say they see the writing on the wall and just figure it is a lost cause, isn't Judge Posner the Chief Justice of the 7th, and they don't appeal, now what?

What if our side did nothing for 181 days except say no unless the carry bill was really good, then the state would be in non compliance.

So, here is my question.

If the court didn't tell Illinois outright that their weapon's carry bans are now void, could someone file a injunction against their enforcement under the following terms.

Individuals who have any of the following can carry loaded openly or concealed.

1. A firearms owners ID card.
2. Valid CCW permit from any state.

Sensitive zones will be defined as the following.

Secure areas of airports
Jails, prisons, court houses,
Legislative bodies,
School grounds with exception of parking lots so that parents can pick up and drop of children. School employees can store personal arms in their cars.

Schools defined as K to 12, not universities or colleges.

Private businesses can make establishments no carry and they can ask people who are armed to leave. Refusal to leave then becomes tress pass.

Require that carriers notify police officers that they are armed if their is an encounter.
Allow police to verify with probable cause that a person is not a prohibited person..

Still allow enforcement of all gun laws related to criminals.

Nicki

bulgron
12-11-2012, 3:56 PM
I don't see Illinois not trying to go en-banc, if for no other reason than to stall.

Let's say they see the writing on the wall and just figure it is a lost cause, isn't Judge Posner the Chief Justice of the 7th, and they don't appeal, now what?

What if our side did nothing for 181 days except say no unless the carry bill was really good, then the state would be in non compliance.

So, here is my question.

If the court didn't tell Illinois outright that their weapon's carry bans are now void, could someone file a injunction against their enforcement under the following terms.

Individuals who have any of the following can carry loaded openly or concealed.

1. A firearms owners ID card.
2. Valid CCW permit from any state.

Sensitive zones will be defined as the following.

Secure areas of airports
Jails, prisons, court houses,
Legislative bodies,
School grounds with exception of parking lots so that parents can pick up and drop of children. School employees can store personal arms in their cars.

Schools defined as K to 12, not universities or colleges.

Private businesses can make establishments no carry and they can ask people who are armed to leave. Refusal to leave then becomes tress pass.

Require that carriers notify police officers that they are armed if their is an encounter.
Allow police to verify with probable cause that a person is not a prohibited person..

Still allow enforcement of all gun laws related to criminals.

Nicki

You forgot, "The mere carrying of a firearm by a permit holder in non-sensitive places (as defined by this bill) shall never be considered a crime, including that of disturbing the peace." Or something like that.

OleCuss
12-11-2012, 4:07 PM
I don't see Illinois not trying to go en-banc, if for no other reason than to stall.

I'm not sure that is something they would want to do. After all, the en banc court might not be as kind as was the current panel. . . It depends on how they see the rest of the court acting if they try to go en banc.

And since the current panel gave them the 180 days to fix their laws, the en banc court might figure that if they rule within 120 days that Illinois only gets another 60 days to fix their laws? This could be a very difficult thing for them.

.
.
.
So, here is my question.

If the court didn't tell Illinois outright that their weapon's carry bans are now void.
.
.
.

I may not be on point on this one, but my brief response is that the court did tell the State of Illinois that their carry ban is void. But they get to act as if it is not void for another 180 days so that they will not be without a legal/regulatory schema in order to deal with the carry issue.

I'm probably not saying it right. . . But the law was found to be unconstitutional and thus has been struck down.

If you buy something on credit you owe the money immediately. But according to the terms you may not actually have to make a payment for several months and you may not have to finally make good on the full amount due for years. But you owe the money immediately.

curtisfong
12-11-2012, 4:12 PM
And since the current panel gave them the 180 days to fix their laws, the en banc court might figure that if they rule within 120 days that Illinois only gets another 60 days to fix their laws?

Does that mean ff they decide to go for en-banc, it means they are confident they can win at minimum an injunction on the 180 limit and/or some sort of guarantee of the clock being put on hold?

Scott Connors
12-11-2012, 4:26 PM
So...someone explain to me how it is that Illinois gets the honest judges, when you consider the pool from which they're selected? :ack2:

mag360
12-11-2012, 4:33 PM
DeFacto constitutional carry if they dont agree on restrictions? Muahahaha brady is peeing their pants right now.

Librarian
12-11-2012, 4:36 PM
Someone asked if Chicago could create its own prohibition.

I don't think so.

The original complaint (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.1.0.pdf) asked for 1. This action for deprivation of civil rights under color of law challenges Illinois’ statutory prohibitions on “Unlawful Use of Weapons” (720 ILCS 5/24-1) and “Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons” (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6) to the extent that they prohibit otherwise qualified private citizens from carrying handguns for the purpose of self-defense.
Presuming later proceedings did not substantially modify that request (haven't read the whole set), todays's opinion would include two significant parts of Illinois Compiled Statutes 720 ILCS 5/Art. 24 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt.+24&ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=68200000&SeqEnd=71300000)
Sec. 24-1.6. Aggravated unlawful use of a weapon.
(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon when he or she knowingly:

(1) Carries on or about his or her person or in any
vehicle or concealed on or about his or her person except when on his or her land or in his or her abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm; or

(2) Carries or possesses on or about his or her
person, upon any public street, alley, or other public lands within the corporate limits of a city, village or incorporated town, except when an invitee thereon or therein, for the purpose of the display of such weapon or the lawful commerce in weapons, or except when on his or her own land or in his or her own abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm; and
(3) One of the following factors is present:
(A) the firearm possessed was uncased, loaded and immediately accessible at the time of the offense; or
(B) the firearm possessed was uncased, unloaded and the ammunition for the weapon was immediately accessible at the time of the offense; or
...The very specific and inclusive language of (2) suggests that this is assumed by the legislature to be a state-law issue; I don't see anything like 'the Legislature intends to occupy the whole field of the regulation of the carry of weapons' so I can't be more assertive on the point. (Such language might be somewhere, but I don't see it; IL law is not my specialty.)

sholling
12-11-2012, 4:43 PM
David Kopel over at the Volokh Conspiracy (a blog for law professors) has a few interesting observations.

http://www.volokh.com/2012/12/11/moore-v-madigan-key-points/
Judge Posner’s opinion for a 2-1 panel of the 7th Circuit. Illinois is the only state which forbids gun carrying in public as a matter of law. There is no provision for the issuance of licenses for concealed carry, or for open carry. Both are banned. There are some exceptions for particular activities (e.g., while hunting), and for persons with a special occupational status (e.g., licensed security guard, some government officials).

According to the Supreme Court, 1791 (year of ratification) is the crucial year for the Second Amendment’s original meaning. The usual suspects (Saul Cornell, etc.) claim that there was no generally recognized right to carry in 1791. But the “Supreme Court rejected the argument. The appellees ask us to repudiate the Court’s historical analysis. That we can’t do. Nor can we ignore the implication of the analysis that the constitutional right of armed self defense is broader than the right to have a gun in one’s home. . . .A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.”

Moreover, Posner writes, the main purpose of Kachalsky’s inside/outside distinction was to justify intermediate scrutiny for restrictions on guns outside the home. In Madigan, “our analysis is not based on degrees of scrutiny, but on Illinois’s failure to justify the most restrictive gun law of any of the 50 states.” [Study tip for law students: 3-tier scrutiny doesn't explain everything. If a government prohibited everyone from speaking out loud in public places, a court does not need to use strict or intermediate scrutiny to decide if the ban is constitutional. Blanket bans on speaking in public places are per se void, and so are blanket bans on bearing arms in public places.]

stix213
12-11-2012, 4:53 PM
Someone asked if Chicago could create its own prohibition.

I don't think so.

The original complaint (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.1.0.pdf) asked for
Presuming later proceedings did not substantially modify that request (haven't read the whole set), todays's opinion would include two significant parts of Illinois Compiled Statutes 720 ILCS 5/Art. 24 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt.+24&ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=68200000&SeqEnd=71300000)
The very specific and inclusive language of (2) suggests that this is assumed by the legislature to be a state-law issue; I don't see anything like 'the Legislature intends to occupy the whole field of the regulation of the carry of weapons' so I can't be more assertive on the point. (Such language might be somewhere, but I don't see it; IL law is not my specialty.)

If you were talking about my comment, I was more thinking they could come up with their own CCW system while banning carry within city limits to those without a permit. They claim it to be shall issue in compliance, but then they try various shenanigans to keep it curtailed like not issuing to non-Chicago residents, not issuing to anyone with even a traffic ticket, not issuing to anyone who can't make one hole groups at 25 yards with their subcompact pistol, etc.

What's your opinion on that?

That's why I was thinking we actually don't want the clock to run out, because IL gunnies need a shall issue law that also has language preventing additional carry licensing schemes by major cities.

voiceofreason
12-11-2012, 4:58 PM
clearest path for IL would be to follow the CA/NY "May Issue" model.

I'd prefer they went Constitutional Carry, but it won't be that easy.

FastFinger
12-11-2012, 5:00 PM
So...someone explain to me how it is that Illinois gets the honest judges, when you consider the pool from which they're selected? :ack2:

It might have to do with the fact that Posner and Flaum were appointed by Reagan. Williams was appointed by Clinton.

Our votes matter.

Kid Stanislaus
12-11-2012, 5:36 PM
The state (IL) waits the entire 180 days and then appeals. They'll drag their feet and invent a barrage of delaying tactics until BHO appoints his next closet Marxist to the SCOTUS and its game over. :mad:

Kid Stanislaus
12-11-2012, 5:46 PM
http://flapsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/Feinstein2.jpg

Don't we have a rule hereabouts against posting photos of ugly and/or stupid people?:43:

Uxi
12-11-2012, 6:54 PM
Should be interesting to see what happens next. Almost certainly going to expect some "reasonable" California style 'regulation' (aka Infringements) with discretionary CCW Issue ala Baca. IOW, delaying tactics. Appeal to SCOTUS raises the stakes but probably gets them a stay while they pursue and hope Barry can get another appointment to replace one of the Heller 5.

jdberger
12-11-2012, 7:13 PM
So, if I'm correct, unless the IL legislature comes up with a carry law, IL goes Con. carry?

In 180 days?

My inner Saul Alinsky is dancing.....

HowardW56
12-11-2012, 7:15 PM
So, if I'm correct, unless the IL legislature comes up with a carry law, IL goes Con. carry?

In 180 days?

My inner Saul Alinsky is dancing.....


It appears so :party:

pointedstick
12-11-2012, 7:19 PM
Should be interesting to see what happens next. Almost certainly going to expect some "reasonable" California style 'regulation' (aka Infringements) with discretionary CCW Issue ala Baca. IOW, delaying tactics. Appeal to SCOTUS raises the stakes but probably gets them a stay while they pursue and hope Barry can get another appointment to replace one of the Heller 5.

Legislative games and delaying tactics are great! Remember, 6 months without a bill and IL residents get virtual constitutional carry, and pro-gun forces have a majority in the legislature…

What incentive would we have to let them pass a bill that gives us less that what we're already going to get automatically?

That's where we are right now. We have a VERY large bargaining chip we can use to bludgeon our political opponents with, and we need to make use of it!

Uxi
12-11-2012, 7:25 PM
Legislative games and delaying tactics are great! Remember, 6 months without a bill and IL residents get virtual constitutional carry, and pro-gun forces have a majority in the legislature…

What incentive would we have to let them pass a bill that gives us less that what we're already going to get automatically?

That's where we are right now. We have a VERY large bargaining chip we can use to bludgeon our political opponents with, and we need to make use of it!

Great point. That pro-gun majority is great. I gotta imagine there's gonna be some serious demagoguery coming up, though and would be surprised if there's NO bill at all. The trick is how many 'moderates' they can get to buy into 'reasonable' regulation.

mofugly13
12-11-2012, 7:50 PM
Won't defendants just request en banc or appeal to SCOTUS and then get a stay on the decision pending the outcome of one of those actions?

sholling
12-11-2012, 7:52 PM
Legislative games and delaying tactics are great! Remember, 6 months without a bill and IL residents get virtual constitutional carry, and pro-gun forces have a majority in the legislature…

What incentive would we have to let them pass a bill that gives us less that what we're already going to get automatically?

That's where we are right now. We have a VERY large bargaining chip we can use to bludgeon our political opponents with, and we need to make use of it!
I would assume that if the legislature does not act that the cities and counties will pass their own laws. In other words LTCs that are only good for one city or county and subject to wherever restrictions Chicago thinks they can buy time with.

nick
12-11-2012, 7:55 PM
The state (IL) waits the entire 180 days and then appeals. They'll drag their feet and invent a barrage of delaying tactics until BHO appoints his next closet Marxist to the SCOTUS and its game over. :mad:

There're time limits on filing appeals.

Coded-Dude
12-11-2012, 8:22 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but SCOTUS is currently reviewing cases to take until January(?) and they will be argued starting in March(?)...... Is there any chance an appeal would be filed in that time frame(it would likely be a long shot for the judges to even accept it) or are we looking at next session(or sometime thereafter).

safewaysecurity
12-11-2012, 8:31 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but SCOTUS is currently reviewing cases to take until January(?) and they will be argued starting in March(?)...... Is there any chance an appeal would be filed in that time frame(it would likely be a long shot for the judges to even accept it) or are we looking at next session(or sometime thereafter).

Well in Kachalsky Cert has been filed, we pretty much have a circuit split with this decision and Illinois could file a petition for cert. Supreme court might very well grant Cert for one of the cases and it's better to have it sooner rather than later.

elSquid
12-11-2012, 8:31 PM
Somewhere the founding fathers of this great nation are looking upon us and smiling.

Today is a good day.

If someone could PM me the address for SAF I would like to send them a handwritten thank you letter along with a small donation.

http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=safdonation

http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=contact

Second Amendment Foundation
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005

SAF definitely deserves to receive some donations! I will be joining you in sending them some money.

-- Michael

hoffmang
12-11-2012, 8:36 PM
That this decision only strikes state law does not leave room for counties to violate it. The opinion makes it pretty clear that even NY's may issue probably doesn't pass constitutional muster. IL could wat 181 and then Cook County could pass it's own carry scheme, but it would be bound by this opinion. That's unlikely.

However, en-banc is a possibility to try to delay and get out of the political pickle that the anti crowd in IL finds themselves currently in. That, however, looks only like a delay at best for the antis...

-Gene

taperxz
12-11-2012, 8:48 PM
That this decision only strikes state law does not leave room for counties to violate it. The opinion makes it pretty clear that even NY's may issue probably doesn't pass constitutional muster. IL could wat 181 and then Cook County could pass it's own carry scheme, but it would be bound by this opinion. That's unlikely.

However, en-banc is a possibility to try to delay and get out of the political pickle that the anti crowd in IL finds themselves currently in. That, however, looks only like a delay at best for the antis...

-Gene

Hasn't that cost Chicago/DC enough money to delay the process of law?

Scott Connors
12-11-2012, 8:57 PM
Which is scarier?

http://flapsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/Feinstein2.jpg

or

http://www.solarnavigator.net/mythology/mythology_images/Count_Dracula_Christopher_Lee.jpg

Has anybody seen Feinstein eat garlic? :eek:

safewaysecurity
12-11-2012, 8:57 PM
That this decision only strikes state law does not leave room for counties to violate it. The opinion makes it pretty clear that even NY's may issue probably doesn't pass constitutional muster. IL could wat 181 and then Cook County could pass it's own carry scheme, but it would be bound by this opinion. That's unlikely.

However, en-banc is a possibility to try to delay and get out of the political pickle that the anti crowd in IL finds themselves currently in. That, however, looks only like a delay at best for the antis...

-Gene

Why is it unlikely that Cook passes it's own carry provisions if the state decides to wait out the 181 days? They could go shall issue but include so many fees and "sensitive places" that it would be practically impossible anyways and it would start litigation all over again. I hope they just pass the legislation quickly with state preemption attached to fix that problem.

Scott Connors
12-11-2012, 8:58 PM
Hasn't that cost Chicago/DC enough money to delay the process of law?

It's not the politicians' money, so why should they care? Just tax the peasants more.

bollero
12-11-2012, 9:05 PM
Does this case help defeat California's open carry ban law?

sholling
12-11-2012, 9:08 PM
That this decision only strikes state law does not leave room for counties to violate it. The opinion makes it pretty clear that even NY's may issue probably doesn't pass constitutional muster. IL could wat 181 and then Cook County could pass it's own carry scheme, but it would be bound by this opinion. That's unlikely.

However, en-banc is a possibility to try to delay and get out of the political pickle that the anti crowd in IL finds themselves currently in. That, however, looks only like a delay at best for the antis...

-Gene
Chicago or Cook County can pass its own carry scheme with the knowledge that the lower courts will let them get by with the same games they've been using to foot-drag McDonald. They could for example open with may-issue and only city issued LTCs valid in town and only for 12 months and only after 40 hours of formal annual training and buy themselves 12-18 months before the court gives them a do-over. Then they can come back with shall-issue but not valid with 2500 feet of a school, church, day car facility, or city building and buy another 12-18 months before that's sent back for another do-over. Then they can come back yet again with something else and buy yet another 12-18 months. If statewide LTC with preemption isn't passed that's exactly what they will try to do because the courts have let them get away with with post McDonald roadblocks on possession in the home. Of course the court could put its foot down and declare constitutional carry the law of the land (like they could have declared non-permitted/unregistered possession in the home) but they are likely to take their time and let local governments experiment and see how far they can push the limits. Hopefully I'm wrong but the surest bet for fully functional statewide carry before the end of Hilary's 1st term is the state passing shall-issue with preemption.

ssaction
12-11-2012, 9:08 PM
http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=safdonation

http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=contact

Second Amendment Foundation
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005

SAF definitely deserves to receive some donations! I will be joining you in sending them some money.

-- Michael

+1

Done!

hoffmang
12-11-2012, 9:21 PM
Chicago or Cook County can pass its own carry scheme with the knowledge that the lower courts will let them get by with the same games they've been using to foot-drag McDonald.

No, that would end up creating the next Ezell, but instead on carry. I for one have loved the implications of Ezell around the country and would love for Chicago to speed up cleaning that stuff up. Anyone else starting to notice that the 7th Circuit is pretty darn good for us?

I'm not the only one that can do that math (aka, Rham can count.)

-Gene

todd2968
12-11-2012, 9:28 PM
Its a good day but these legislatures could really screw up a law for example
1 million insurance for all CCW's
Yearly proficiency test proctored by LEO and costly record check
Only one bullet magazines are allowed
Cannot carry while riding in a vehicle due to vibrations,and road rage

kcbrown
12-11-2012, 9:33 PM
No, that would end up creating the next Ezell, but instead on carry. I for one have loved the implications of Ezell around the country and would love for Chicago to speed up cleaning that stuff up. Anyone else starting to notice that the 7th Circuit is pretty darn good for us?


And Ezell has done what, exactly, for keep and bear in Chicago so far?

Seems to me that turning it into another Ezell is exactly what we do not want.

Maybe I'm just missing the overall strategic value of it...

hoffmang
12-11-2012, 9:41 PM
And Ezell has done what, exactly, for keep and bear in Chicago so far?

Seems to me that turning it into another Ezell is exactly what we do not want.

Maybe I'm just missing the overall strategic value of it...

In California it allows us to challenge Alameda County's denial of a gun shop. In California it allowed Paul Clement to say that a court of appeals had applied the right to keep and bear arms outside the home. In Illinois it allowed the Moore panel to cite it for all sorts of good reasons.

It's has and will continue to be very handy.

-Gene

elSquid
12-11-2012, 9:42 PM
Its a good day but these legislatures could really screw up a law for example
1 million insurance for all CCW's
Yearly proficiency test proctored by LEO and costly record check
Only one bullet magazines are allowed
Cannot carry while riding in a vehicle due to vibrations,and road rage

I have this fantasy where officials clearly acting in bad faith and contrary to the court's published opinion wind up being held in contempt...

(sigh)

-- Michael

kcbrown
12-11-2012, 9:49 PM
By the way, this is a HUGE, HUGE win for us. Staggering. I was concerned that the 7th was holding back on us with respect to the timing of the ruling, but I was flat out wrong to have that particular concern -- them waiting until Kachalsky was issued has been VERY, VERY good for us.

I have adjusted my overall outlook accordingly. :D

kcbrown
12-11-2012, 9:51 PM
In California it allows us to challenge Alameda County's denial of a gun shop. In California it allowed Paul Clement to say that a court of appeals had applied the right to keep and bear arms outside the home. In Illinois it allowed the Moore panel to cite it for all sorts of good reasons.

It's has and will continue to be very handy.


Oh, you'll get no argument from me on any of that!

But what has it done for people in Chicago?

Gray Peterson
12-11-2012, 9:58 PM
And Ezell has done what, exactly, for keep and bear in Chicago so far?

Seems to me that turning it into another Ezell is exactly what we do not want.

Maybe I'm just missing the overall strategic value of it...

Ezell cabined the Moore panel in re intermediate scrutiny.

hoffmang
12-11-2012, 9:59 PM
Oh, you'll get no argument from me on any of that!

But what has it done for people in Chicago?

A layup win for that guy who had a misdemeanor firearms possession charge (where he was simply violating the unconstitutional ban, nothing more) when Chicago denied his possession permit shortly before the Ezell decision.

PS. You kind of skipped over how it helped get them on the road to shall issue carry faster than us :)

-Gene

safewaysecurity
12-11-2012, 10:06 PM
No, that would end up creating the next Ezell, but instead on carry. I for one have loved the implications of Ezell around the country and would love for Chicago to speed up cleaning that stuff up. Anyone else starting to notice that the 7th Circuit is pretty darn good for us?

I'm not the only one that can do that math (aka, Rham can count.)

-Gene

Yup, note to future litigants for 2A cases. File them in Chicago.

kcbrown
12-11-2012, 10:08 PM
A layup win for that guy who had a misdemeanor firearms possession charge (where he was simply violating the unconstitutional ban, nothing more) when Chicago denied his possession permit shortly before the Ezell decision.


Ah, I wasn't aware of that one at all. Consider me schooled. :D



PS. You kind of skipped over how it helped get them on the road to shall issue carry faster than us :)


Well, it did, but recall that the original context of the question to which you responded is with regards to what happens if the 180 day clock runs out, with the exchange being:


IL could wat 181 and then Cook County could pass it's own carry scheme, but it would be bound by this opinion. That's unlikely.



Chicago or Cook County can pass its own carry scheme with the knowledge that the lower courts will let them get by with the same games they've been using to foot-drag McDonald.



The scenario under discussion is the one where IL has not preempted Chicago as regards the public carry field. Moore will simply have the effect of erasing the challenged statute.

Useful as it may have been thus far, Ezell has turned into a quagmire. That is something we can do without in the face of Chicago playing games with carry in public, which is precisely the context of the discussion here.

However, if you say what we'll get is another Moore, well, that's very different. :D

kcbrown
12-11-2012, 10:25 PM
By the way, as a decision, this one isn't all roses. The panel quite clearly likes competency tests:


Apart from the usual prohibitions of gun ownership by children, felons, illegal aliens, lunatics, and in sensitive places such as public schools, the propriety of which was not questioned in Heller (“nothing in this opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” 554 U.S. at 626), some states sensibly require that an applicant for a handgun permit establish his competence in handling firearms. A person who carries a gun in public but is not well trained in the use of firearms is a menace to himself and others. See Massad Ayoob, “The Subtleties of Safe Firearms Handling,” Backwoods Home Magazine, Jan./Feb. 2007, p.30;


(emphasis mine)


That, of course, leaves a lot of room for abuse...

hoffmang
12-11-2012, 10:28 PM
That, of course, leaves a lot of room for abuse...

Uhm, by citing Mas, he's saying that people need to know the 4 rules. That's pretty darn pro gun.

-Gene

Apocalypsenerd
12-11-2012, 10:54 PM
KC is sounding pretty optimistic. Maybe the Mayan Calendar thing has some legitimacy.

CCWFacts
12-11-2012, 10:55 PM
This whole thing is awesome and gives me hope. I love Gura's notice of supplemental authority. I have a feeling this whole situation is now in its endgame and will be resolved within 12 months, with a few months of enforcement actions after that here in California before the LTCs start flowing.

I wish I knew of a Brady Campaign discussion forum I could read now to see what they're saying. There's no mention of this on their blog, although they do crow about some other decisions.

What are they going to be left with 12 months from now?

The Shadow
12-11-2012, 10:56 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/11/federal-court-strikes-down-illinois-ban-on-carrying-concealed-weapons/

Okay, cool. So Illinois will get concealed carry, and most likely will have "Shall Issue" before California. What does this mean for California ?

SilverBulletZ06
12-11-2012, 11:02 PM
When Ill. goes "May Issue", sorry I do not even begin to think about "Shall Issue" since this ruling has so many scapegoats built into it, they will not be able to be overly burdensome or costly. It was pretty spelled out in the text regarding legitimate issues with Heller.

What Ill. will end up with is a NY/Cali-style issue system.

The Shadow
12-11-2012, 11:07 PM
When Ill. goes "May Issue", sorry I do not even begin to think about "Shall Issue" since this ruling has so many scapegoats built into it, they will not be able to be overly burdensome or costly. It was pretty spelled out in the text regarding legitimate issues with Heller.

What Ill. will end up with is a NY/Cali-style issue system.

So you're saying that their form of CCW will be LA, SF, OC, SD style CCW, which means no one will get a CCW.

SilverBulletZ06
12-11-2012, 11:09 PM
So you're saying that their form of CCW will be LA, SF, OC, SD style CCW, which means no one will get a CCW.

In issuance, yes I believe so. Very few people will "qualify".

In regards to restrictions placed on CCW permits, probably more like NY: very few outside of federal buildings.

bulgron
12-11-2012, 11:11 PM
When Ill. goes "May Issue", sorry I do not even begin to think about "Shall Issue" since this ruling has so many scapegoats built into it, they will not be able to be overly burdensome or costly. It was pretty spelled out in the text regarding legitimate issues with Heller.

What Ill. will end up with is a NY/Cali-style issue system.

You're ignoring the political situation in Ill, which is spelled out in the first few pages of this thread. There's a near-supermajority of pro-gunners in the Ill legislature. They're just short of being able to bypass the governor's veto on a shall-issue bill. With this decision, if they do nothing (and block all attempts to pass a bad CCW bill), they end up with constitutional carry. Chicago can't handle constitutional carry, so the anti's are forced to play ball.

I predict that they'll have a pretty good state-wide shall issue bill by summer. They might even be able to get rid of their FOID cards.

The only thing that can delay shall-issue CCW in Illinois is if the case goes en banc.

Gray Peterson
12-11-2012, 11:27 PM
When Ill. goes "May Issue", sorry I do not even begin to think about "Shall Issue" since this ruling has so many scapegoats built into it, they will not be able to be overly burdensome or costly. It was pretty spelled out in the text regarding legitimate issues with Heller.

What Ill. will end up with is a NY/Cali-style issue system.

What in the living hell are you talking about?

Todd Vandermyde who is the head lobbyist in IL for both NRA-ILA & ISRA stated that both this Legislature and the next Legislature, we have a majority for "shall-issue".

May-issue isn't even in the cards. We can hold out and just get FOID carry. Anti-gunners need to beg us for concessions, not the other way around.

-Gray

SilverBulletZ06
12-11-2012, 11:32 PM
What in the living hell are you talking about?

Todd Vandermyde who is the head lobbyist in IL for both NRA-ILA & ISRA stated that both this Legislature and the next Legislature, we have a majority for "shall-issue".

May-issue isn't even in the cards. We can hold out and just get FOID carry. Anti-gunners need to beg us for concessions, not the other way around.

-Gray

Playing devils advocate until I read it in print. Sorry, way too many let downs recently.


Political hot-potato may work, until the press throws out the first bad-shoot and the laws are then written counter to what pro-carry folks may want. Best bet is to throw out a strong shall-issue law now, IMHO. Politics is a fickle game, you don't want laws open if you lose the majority.


In the end though, all the best to our friends in Ill.

Gray Peterson
12-11-2012, 11:48 PM
Playing devils advocate until I read it in print. Sorry, way too many let downs recently.


Political hot-potato may work, until the press throws out the first bad-shoot and the laws are then written counter to what pro-carry folks may want. Best bet is to throw out a strong shall-issue law now, IMHO. Politics is a fickle game, you don't want laws open if you lose the majority.


In the end though, all the best to our friends in Ill.

I trust Todd Vandermyde to know how to count votes. There is no danger that Illinois will go may-issue. We have the baton.

hoffmang
12-11-2012, 11:59 PM
I trust Todd Vandermyde to know how to count votes. There is no danger that Illinois will go may-issue. We have the baton.

This. This is something NRA-ILA is competent at.

-Gene

kcbrown
12-12-2012, 12:05 AM
Uhm, by citing Mas, he's saying that people need to know the 4 rules. That's pretty darn pro gun.


The actual citation was:


See Massad Ayoob, “The Subtleties of Safe Firearms Handling,” Backwoods Home Magazine, Jan./Feb. 2007, p. 30; Debra L. Karch, Linda L. Dahlberg & Nimesh Patel, “Surveillance for Violent Deaths—National Violent Death Reporting System, 16 States, 2007,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, p. 11, www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5904.pdf (visited Oct. 29, 2012).



The latter citation is probably referring to this bit:


Context of the Injury and Associated Circumstances

Overall, unintentional firearm injury deaths occurred more commonly while victims were playing with a gun (29.9%), hunting (24.7%), showing a gun to others (14.3%), or loading or unloading a gun (10.4%). The circumstances of injury included thinking that a gun was unloaded, unintentionally pulling the trigger, and experiencing a gun malfunction (26.0%, 19.5%, and 5.2%, respectively) (Table 23).



So you could easily be right about that (and yeah, that makes it quite pro-gun). However, that conclusion requires interpretation and/or inference, whereas the support for competence testing clearly does not. That won't be a problem in the event an appropriate case winds up getting Posner and Flaum on the panel. It could easily be a problem otherwise. I'm very uncomfortable with such things being left to the luck of the draw. Courts are adept enough at cherry picking and "interpreting" things to suit their agenda as it is (witness the amount of abuse of Heller at the hands of the various anti-gun courts). They don't need help in the form of a less-than-explicit statement in a key decision.

kcbrown
12-12-2012, 12:09 AM
May-issue isn't even in the cards. We can hold out and just get FOID carry. Anti-gunners need to beg us for concessions, not the other way around.


And I say we give them none. They've given us none for far too long. It's about time they feel some of the legislative pain they've been subjecting us to.

kcbrown
12-12-2012, 12:16 AM
KC is sounding pretty optimistic. Maybe the Mayan Calendar thing has some legitimacy.

:D


Like I said, I've adjusted my outlook accordingly.

I am a realist, after all. Can't be failing to account for what happens in the real world...


The criticisms I have of the decision are more nits than anything else. The real value of this decision is strategic, and it is huge.

elSquid
12-12-2012, 12:21 AM
May-issue isn't even in the cards. We can hold out and just get FOID carry. Anti-gunners need to beg us for concessions, not the other way around.


And it should be mentioned, for CA residents who may be visiting Chicago next July...

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/illinois-supreme-court-foid-119493094.html

:whistling:

-- Michael

hoffmang
12-12-2012, 12:26 AM
That won't be a problem in the event an appropriate case winds up getting Posner and Flaum on the panel.
Or the three judges on the panel in Ezell. Wait, isn't that 5 of 10 active justices on the 7th Circuit?

Math, like Science - it works b--ches.

-Gene

1JimMarch
12-12-2012, 12:27 AM
Here's how it will go...gunnies to grabbers:

"You guys want at least training in place before 180 days are up? Fine. Please us! We want no more FOID. We want Chicago permanently out of the gun control biz (strong preemption). We want unlimited cutlery carry to go with our CCWs. We want full reciprocity with anything that even smells like another CCW permit. We want lock-boxes for our boomthings at any of the few places we'll let you disarm us. We want you all to do the Funky Chicken Dance in Daley Plaza. You think we're kidding? You're going to have to give us a LOT before we'll concede to training requirements and costs over $10. Because all we have to do is sit here, twiddle our thumbs and fart in your general direction and in 180 days we get constitutional carry and one hell of a party in downtown Chi-town baby. Leave your gangbanger friends behind if you know what's good for 'em."

THAT is where we're at here.

stingray4540
12-12-2012, 1:34 AM
Teehee. Giddy like a school girl.

kcbrown
12-12-2012, 3:19 AM
Or the three judges on the panel in Ezell.


Well, only 2 of the 3, anyway (I've no idea if Rovner would side with the Moore decision or not). So make that 4 out of 10 at a minimum.

With 5/10 on our side, the chance of getting a favorable ruling from at least 2 out of the 3 judges is 50% (no surprise there).

With 4/10 on our side, that drops to 33%.



Math, like Science - it works b--ches.


Yep. :D

scarville
12-12-2012, 5:07 AM
I have this fantasy where officials clearly acting in bad faith and contrary to the court's published opinion wind up being held in contempt...

I have a fantasy where they get life at hard labor unless their obstructionism causes someone to die in which case they get the death penalty.

OleCuss
12-12-2012, 5:17 AM
Here's how it will go...gunnies to grabbers:

"You guys want at least training in place before 180 days are up? Fine. Please us! We want no more FOID. We want Chicago permanently out of the gun control biz (strong preemption). We want unlimited cutlery carry to go with our CCWs. We want full reciprocity with anything that even smells like another CCW permit. We want lock-boxes for our boomthings at any of the few places we'll let you disarm us. We want you all to do the Funky Chicken Dance in Daley Plaza. You think we're kidding? You're going to have to give us a LOT before we'll concede to training requirements and costs over $10. Because all we have to do is sit here, twiddle our thumbs and fart in your general direction and in 180 days we get constitutional carry and one hell of a party in downtown Chi-town baby. Leave your gangbanger friends behind if you know what's good for 'em."

THAT is where we're at here.

^^^This!^^^



Oh, and along with the general excellence of the thinking and prediction, you made me laugh out loud as well!

CDFingers
12-12-2012, 5:52 AM
I like this most recent expansion of gun rights.

Now if CA could become "shall issue" we'd be further down the road.

CDFingers

pointedstick
12-12-2012, 6:36 AM
Here's how it will go...gunnies to grabbers:

"You guys want at least training in place before 180 days are up? Fine. Please us! We want no more FOID. We want Chicago permanently out of the gun control biz (strong preemption). We want unlimited cutlery carry to go with our CCWs. We want full reciprocity with anything that even smells like another CCW permit. We want lock-boxes for our boomthings at any of the few places we'll let you disarm us. We want you all to do the Funky Chicken Dance in Daley Plaza. You think we're kidding? You're going to have to give us a LOT before we'll concede to training requirements and costs over $10. Because all we have to do is sit here, twiddle our thumbs and fart in your general direction and in 180 days we get constitutional carry and one hell of a party in downtown Chi-town baby. Leave your gangbanger friends behind if you know what's good for 'em."

THAT is where we're at here.


Yes. YES! Exactly this. Y'all need to understand what a good position this decision puts us in. Especially:

We want lock-boxes for our boomthings at any of the few places we'll let you disarm us.

We could get IL to lead the way on neutering the Antis' politicized abuse of gun-free zones.

If we could get rid of the FOID, add pre-emption and reciprocity, and accede to shall-issue with modest training requirements, I daresay that IL could be one of the more gun-friendly places in the USA. Imagine that.

mag360
12-12-2012, 7:01 AM
Whats wrong with vermont style? They have good cheddar too. :-D

The Shadow
12-12-2012, 7:10 AM
What in the living hell are you talking about?

Todd Vandermyde who is the head lobbyist in IL for both NRA-ILA & ISRA stated that both this Legislature and the next Legislature, we have a majority for "shall-issue".

May-issue isn't even in the cards. We can hold out and just get FOID carry. Anti-gunners need to beg us for concessions, not the other way around.

-Gray

I just wish I would have bet people on this forum that Illinois would be "Shall Issue" before California. I was pretty sure this would happen.

So my next prediction is that California will be the last state in the Union to go "Shall Issue", regardless of what a few California Sheriffs have done so far.

cdtx2001
12-12-2012, 7:12 AM
This is all good, but I won't be truly happy until the carry law means: Able to purchase gun legally = Allowed to carry gun concealed.

pointedstick
12-12-2012, 7:15 AM
This is all good, but I won't be truly happy until the carry law means: Able to purchase gun legally = Allowed to carry gun concealed.

Well, the list of states that fit your definition is growing all the time!

HowardW56
12-12-2012, 7:27 AM
This. This is something NRA-ILA is competent at.

-Gene


That is the NRA’s strength...

Regulus
12-12-2012, 7:31 AM
Wasn't sure if I should go with Green (yet), so I played it safe. :D

Man that's gotta hurt the anti's.

Thanks to all who made this happen and congratulations to our Illinois brothers and sisters.

http://www.yahnet.net/images/other/2011_rtc_map.jpg

http://www.yahnet.net/images/other/2012_rtc_map.jpg

Al Norris
12-12-2012, 7:37 AM
The state (IL) waits the entire 180 days and then appeals. They'll drag their feet and invent a barrage of delaying tactics until BHO appoints his next closet Marxist to the SCOTUS and its game over. :mad:

Not going to happen.

IL has 90 days to appeal to SCOTUS. IIRC, they have 14 days to motion for an en banc hearing. The clock is running.

If they are going to stall, they will make the en banc motion, shortly. Since this is a matter of striking a State law (a serious matter, for the courts), I suspect they will be granted that motion.

Should the CA7 take up the case en banc, the panel's decision will be removed. I'm assuming that a new briefing schedule will be issued... That will take up another 6 months or so. Then we will wait for a decision from the CA7. Could be another year from now.

Then, should this decision affirm the panels original decision, IL could stall further by appealing to the SCOTUS. That's another year to year and a half wait... June of 2015.

All during this time, the Law will remain in effect, as a stay will be granted at each and every step of the way.

The above doesn't take into consideration Woollard, or at this juncture, Kachalsky (which could conceivably put the final nail in their coffin, before an en banc decision).

Then we should also consider the 3 cases currently at the 9th (yes, this decision will have an affect upon them - good or ill). Should I also mention the NJ case? How about Gray's case?

This is the watershed moment we have been waiting for.

fizux
12-12-2012, 7:39 AM
Wasn't sure if I should go with Green (yet), so I played it safe. :D

Man that's gotta hurt the anti's.

http://www.yahnet.net/images/other/2011_rtc_map.jpg

http://www.yahnet.net/images/other/2012_rtc_map.jpg

Nah, go with green -- as in the color of the involuntary donations made to SAF in response to silly Chicago ordinances to follow.

The Shadow
12-12-2012, 7:53 AM
So this is the order in which I see the last seven hold out states becoming "Shall Issue".

1. Delaware

2. Rhode Island

3. Maryland

4. Massachusetts

5. New York

6. New Jersey

7. California

If anyone sees this different, chime in.

Mitch
12-12-2012, 7:55 AM
I wish I knew of a Brady Campaign discussion forum I could read now to see what they're saying.

The Gun Control & RKBA Group at Democratic Underground is a reasonable proxy.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172

Here is a thread on yesterday's ruling: http://upload.democraticunderground.com/117291342

It's a weird place, though. If you spend more than a week there you notice it's the same people saying the same things again and again and again.

fizux
12-12-2012, 8:01 AM
So this is the order in which I see the last seven hold out states becoming "Shall Issue".

1. Delaware

2. Rhode Island

3. Maryland

4. Massachusetts

5. New York

6. New Jersey

7. California

If anyone sees this different, chime in.

I would swap 5 with 6, and add #8: D.C. (albeit not a state).

Apocalypsenerd
12-12-2012, 8:10 AM
:D


Like I said, I've adjusted my outlook accordingly.

I am a realist, after all. Can't be failing to account for what happens in the real world...


The criticisms I have of the decision are more nits than anything else. The real value of this decision is strategic, and it is huge.

Normally I'm a realist as well. I value your input because you're a realist and know a lot more than I do. When I read something like this, I just wait for the other shoe to drop. My guess would be an En Banc hearing that delays this out another couple of years. However, with the optimism being generated by just about everyone including you, I think my skepticism may be unwarranted.

Python2
12-12-2012, 8:13 AM
I would swap 5 with 6, and add #8: D.C. (albeit not a state).

How about Hawaii?

M. D. Van Norman
12-12-2012, 8:30 AM
Wasn’t sure if I should go with Green (yet) …

As Al Norris pointed out, it’s still too soon for a color change. It could be only 179 days (2013) or as long as 900+ days (2015). :o

RKV
12-12-2012, 8:37 AM
This is Chicago/Il. folks. EXPECT a stall, expect en banc. Look at Ezell for a model - this is the same players. And the stay will continue in the meantime. See you at SCOTUS in 2015. I wish I were wrong, but the history says that's how this will play out. Great reading in the decision, and hopefully persuasive to the supes. Pray for the health of the Heller 5.

fizux
12-12-2012, 8:47 AM
How about Hawaii?

Probably between MD and MA.

OleCuss
12-12-2012, 8:53 AM
This is Chicago/Il. folks. EXPECT a stall, expect en banc. Look at Ezell for a model - this is the same players. And the stay will continue in the meantime. See you at SCOTUS in 2015. I wish I were wrong, but the history says that's how this will play out. Great reading in the decision, and hopefully persuasive to the supes. Pray for the health of the Heller 5.

I'm not so sure you can look to Ezell for the model.

But if you do. . .

Remember that Chicago lost Ezell at CA-7? I don't recall their asking for en banc or asking for cert? Maybe I'm not remembering correctly?

Regulus
12-12-2012, 8:56 AM
As Al Norris pointed out, it’s still too soon for a color change. It could be only 179 days (2013) or as long as 900+ days (2015). :o

I've been following this thread and understand the uncertainty of the next 179 days (or more). :)

The map was symbolic and a poke at the anti's.

Paladin
12-12-2012, 9:01 AM
It might have to do with the fact that Posner and Flaum were appointed by Reagan. Williams was appointed by Clinton.

Our votes matter.True, and unlike some here enamored with law and legal reasoning, politics matter even in judge's chambers....

IL needs to use the "carry cliff" to bargain to get the NRA's Model Castle Doctrine law which includes, among other things, "stand your ground" and bars the BG and/or his survivors from suing the LTC/CCWer if there is no criminal conviction for the shooting.

The Shadow
12-12-2012, 9:01 AM
I would swap 5 with 6, and add #8: D.C. (albeit not a state).

The thing is, Congress has the last say on laws in D.C.. In reality, D.C. is just a city, and not a state.

Mulay El Raisuli
12-12-2012, 9:05 AM
Because perhaps without the legislated protection of a CCW there would be things like a rash of "disturbing the peace" arrests by Chicago PD as retribution. Just a thought. Do you really trust them to respect the right when it's now just in a completely undefined, nebulous state?


"Trust" them? Not even a little bit. But, I see this as opportunity for lots & lots of civil suits.


It might have to do with the fact that Posner and Flaum were appointed by Reagan. Williams was appointed by Clinton.

Our votes matter.


QFT.


The state (IL) waits the entire 180 days and then appeals. They'll drag their feet and invent a barrage of delaying tactics until BHO appoints his next closet Marxist to the SCOTUS and its game over. :mad:


With Rahm making the decision, absolutely. Still, the Ruling DOES have value. While not binding anywhere, it IS persuasive. And can be quoted in the Supplemental Briefings that I'm sure are being written as we speak, & to SCOTUS in re the other carry cases even if it it does get delayed.


This is politics. Everybody in the Il legislature has their own little chess game going, and guns are only one little piece of that. To the legislators, this ruling is a big pile of trading stock, and they are working up their letters to Santa right now.

What I'm saying is a legislator is going to get more of what *he* wants by horsetrading a little while assembling a bill.


IF (and it is a BIG "if") Rahm doesn't appeal, there will be some "horse trading."


No gunnie wants less than that, but Chicago will likely make their own carry laws if they aren't preempted by the state. Chicago could end up being almost may-issue, and a big chunk of the Illinois population is in Chicago. Illinois could have passed shall-issue long ago if they didn't care about Chicago.


Gene covered this pretty well. I'll just add that I'm not seeing just how Chicago could exempt itself from a Ruling that started out applying specifically to them.


Presuming that nothing gets done & Cont. Carry (for FOID card holders) becomes the law of the land, aren't FOID cards basically "shall-issue"?


The Raisuli

The Shadow
12-12-2012, 9:06 AM
How about Hawaii?

I forgot Hawaii which isn't difficult. However, I think that Hawaii will get "Shall Issue" before California.

Mulay El Raisuli
12-12-2012, 9:08 AM
True, and unlike some here enamored with law and legal reasoning, politics matter even in judge's chambers....

IL needs to use the "carry cliff" to bargain to get the NRA's Model Castle Doctrine law which includes, among other things, "stand your ground" and bars the BG and/or his survivors from suing the LTC/CCWer if there is no criminal conviction for the shooting.


And this is all a pretty good reason for Ill. gunnies to NOT sit on their duffs. Const. Carry is nice, but clearing away all the rest of the crap is a solid goal.


The Raisuli

M. D. Van Norman
12-12-2012, 9:13 AM
The map was symbolic.…

Point taken. :)

I wish that the prohibitionists would just recognize defeat and come to the table. Working together, we could wrap up some reasonable legislation in a matter of weeks and be done with all this nonsense. :o

dave_cg
12-12-2012, 9:15 AM
I have adjusted my overall outlook accordingly. :D

PorkAir flight 101, cleared for take-off.

FastFinger
12-12-2012, 9:25 AM
Point taken. :)

I wish that the prohibitionists would just recognize defeat and come to the table. Working together, we could wrap up some reasonable legislation in a matter of weeks and be done with all this nonsense. :o

"Reasonable" by OUR definition.

M. D. Van Norman
12-12-2012, 9:32 AM
Exactly. If the prohibitionists were actually interested in reasonable gun-control laws, we could have them.

Untamed1972
12-12-2012, 9:43 AM
Or the three judges on the panel in Ezell. Wait, isn't that 5 of 10 active justices on the 7th Circuit?

Math, like Science - it works b--ches.

-Gene

:rofl2: