PDA

View Full Version : SAF statement on Moore vs. Madigan victory...


bwiese
12-11-2012, 9:58 AM
I'll let Brandon post official commentary but this extract has the key info.

I will note that the specific wording is HUGE on clarifying 'bear'. Sure, it's logical to all of us here, but to use Heller and go straight back to plain wording is exactly what we want.

Will the immediate derived implementation of carry be perfect in IL?
Probably not. Will future litigation be required? Probably, but this sets the ball rolling.

The crowbar is in the doorjamb and the door just busted wide open.

THIS. IS. BIG.

Yes, WE ARE ALL WINNING. Regardless of nitpicking & yapping on forums


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...a ruling in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that declares the right to self-defense is "broader than the right to have a gun in one's home."

The case of Moore v. Madigan, with Judge Richard Posner writing for the majority, gives the Illinois legislature 180 days to "craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment on the carrying of guns in public."

"We are very happy with Judge Posner's majority opinion," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "This is a victory for Illinois citizens who have been long denied a right recognized in the other 49 states; to have the means necessary for self-defense outside the home.

"In the broader sense," he added, "this ruling affirms that the right to keep and bear arms, itself, extends beyond the boundary of one's front door. This is a huge victory for the Second Amendment."

"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."

Later, Judge Posner adds, "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."

"That the court will give Illinois lawmakers six months to craft a law allowing carry outside the home recognizes that the right to bear arms means what it says," Gottlieb concluded. "The ball is now in the Legislature's court, and we eagerly wait to see how well they can live up to their responsibility."

yellowfin
12-11-2012, 10:08 AM
Will the other side be stupid enough to appeal?

Purple K
12-11-2012, 10:11 AM
Will the other side be stupid enough to appeal?

Hopefully!

OleCuss
12-11-2012, 10:13 AM
Will the other side be stupid enough to appeal?

One can only hope!

But more likely they will take the 6 months to craft utterly insane legislation to effectively outlaw carry while officially allowing it. Then it will take a series of court actions to fix it.

But IIRC, this is the State rather than the city. I don't think the state is quite as nutty as Chicago.

dave_cg
12-11-2012, 10:19 AM
But IIRC, this is the State rather than the city. I don't think the state is quite as nutty as Chicago.
I can't claim to have any understanding of IL politics, but I suspect this will set up a lot of urban v. rural log rolling.

Casual_Shooter
12-11-2012, 10:20 AM
The part I liked the best...

A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home." (emphasis mine)

It would seem to limit their inevitable restrictions.

mag360
12-11-2012, 10:22 AM
Yes... They have to! Think of the children!!

Dark Paladin
12-11-2012, 10:23 AM
Congrats to the parties that made this happen. Definitely a step in the right direction.

On a more realistic note, I forsee certain parts of the IL legislature attempting to pull shenanigans to circumvent the meaning of the ruling.

Powerkraut
12-11-2012, 10:29 AM
Whatever hoops the IL legislature tries to make people jump through, Bweise is correct in pointing out that the crystal-clear verbage in this decision is probably the biggest victory.

speedrrracer
12-11-2012, 10:48 AM
But IIRC, this is the State rather than the city. I don't think the state is quite as nutty as Chicago.

^^ This

IIRC, the State legislature is wildly different from Chicago...not sure how any resulting law will shake out, but at least they're on their way.

Will the 9th be at all influenced by this decision as they ponder Peruta, etc?

morrcarr67
12-11-2012, 10:53 AM
Whatever hoops the IL legislature tries to make people jump through, Bweise is correct in pointing out that the crystal-clear verbage in this decision is probably the biggest victory.

You got that right. :43:

unusedusername
12-11-2012, 11:07 AM
:party:

My understanding is that this will force the supremes to hear the issue once another circuit decided that the right does not exist outside the home, correct?

This could be big news for California in a few years...

bwiese
12-11-2012, 11:15 AM
Everything has changed today ;-)

The Bradys were always saying that Heller was 'just about home' even though the decision merely said "...most notably in the home..." and in no way was restriction, just an emphasis.

This has been a complete refutation.

There will either be "compliance" in other courts or circuit splits.

Circuit splits go up to the Supremes that wrote Heller and McDonald.

The language here is POWERFUL as it used Heller to support essentially a language based approach on 'bear' being equalized to 'keep'.... and then added statement after statement after statement of emphasis on this.

HowardW56
12-11-2012, 11:21 AM
Will the other side be stupid enough to appeal?

They may......

1BigPea
12-11-2012, 11:30 AM
Everything has changed today ;-)

The Bradys were always saying that Heller was 'just about home' even though the decision merely said "...most notably in the home..." and in no way was restriction, just an emphasis.

This has been a complete refutation.

There will either be "compliance" in other courts or circuit splits.

Circuit splits go up to the Supremes that wrote Heller and McDonald.

The language here is POWERFUL as it used Heller to support essentially a language based approach on 'bear' being equalized to 'keep'.... and then added statement after statement after statement of emphasis on this.

This is awesome!!

edwardm
12-11-2012, 11:33 AM
Everything has changed today ;-)

The Bradys were always saying that Heller was 'just about home' even though the decision merely said "...most notably in the home..." and in no way was restriction, just an emphasis.

This has been a complete refutation.

There will either be "compliance" in other courts or circuit splits.

Circuit splits go up to the Supremes that wrote Heller and McDonald.

The language here is POWERFUL as it used Heller to support essentially a language based approach on 'bear' being equalized to 'keep'.... and then added statement after statement after statement of emphasis on this.

I think the big ticket in the opinion is how the court dealt with conflicting and contradictory arguments originating in various academic journals, studies and articles. Rather than engage in the oft-seen default hang wringing, the approach taken was more of "Hell if we have all the answers, but we do know this stuff isn't good enough to justify complete abrogation of a right."

It almost smells like common sense.

Fyathyrio
12-11-2012, 11:39 AM
It's been too many happy years since I've lived in Chicago...does IL state law override city law? How can this decision help Ezell?

chiselchst
12-11-2012, 11:40 AM
Everything has changed today ;-)

This has been a complete refutation.

WOW, Yahoo! :oji:

jar
12-11-2012, 11:43 AM
It's been too many happy years since I've lived in Chicago...does IL state law override city law? How can this decision help Ezell?

It takes a 3/5 majority to pass a state law which preempts home rule. The shall issue bill in the IL state House of Representatives fell just short of the 3/5 mark last year.

ayemossum
12-11-2012, 11:46 AM
Ok so since the court has ruled that (as we all "duh" over) "bear arms" means... CARRY in PUBLIC (there's the "duh"), how do we make THIS dumb state comply?

HowardW56
12-11-2012, 11:53 AM
Ok so since the court has ruled that (as we all "duh" over) "bear arms" means... CARRY in PUBLIC (there's the "duh"), how do we make THIS dumb state comply?

The 7th Circuit ruled, not the 9th. Wait a few months and we'll see what the 9th circuit ruling is...

Kukuforguns
12-11-2012, 11:55 AM
Ok so since the court has ruled that (as we all "duh" over) "bear arms" means... CARRY in PUBLIC (there's the "duh"), how do we make THIS dumb state comply?

Just like your shampoo bottle says, "lather and repeat as necessary."

ayemossum
12-11-2012, 11:57 AM
Just like your shampoo bottle says, "lather and repeat as necessary."

Yeah that. Heh. There are several cases at the 9th right now, right?

uyoga
12-11-2012, 11:58 AM
We might want to let them know how we feel. By voting here:

http://www.suntimes.com/16951312-761/federal-appeals-court-tosses-state-ban-on-carrying-concealed-weapons.html

hvengel
12-11-2012, 12:02 PM
It takes a 3/5 majority to pass a state law which preempts home rule. The shall issue bill in the IL state House of Representatives fell just short of the 3/5 mark last year.

Also keep in mind that the state is up against a 180 day hard dead line to pass a carry law. If they don't pass some sort of law by that time then they get Constitutional carry. So the almost 3/5 carry majority has tons of leverage and the anti side has almost none.

ayemossum
12-11-2012, 12:09 PM
We might want to let them know how we feel. By voting here:

http://www.suntimes.com/16951312-761/federal-appeals-court-tosses-state-ban-on-carrying-concealed-weapons.html

Wow. Did you see the current results on that?
Of 922 votes (do you agree with the 7th circuit court's decision), 864 "Yes."
How's that for a majority?

defcon
12-11-2012, 12:13 PM
Also keep in mind that the state is up against a 180 day hard dead line to pass a carry law. If they don't pass some sort of law by that time then they get Constitutional carry. So the almost 3/5 carry majority has tons of leverage and the anti side has almost none.

what does constitutional carry mean?

CalBear
12-11-2012, 12:15 PM
I've read through the ruling and it's our biggest win since Heller and McDonald, IMO. We've now got really clear language at the circuit court level saying the right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home and includes loaded firearms. The majority was very clear with the language about self defense and how absurd not allowing carry beyond the home would be in that context. Going forward, the default (in 6 months) in Illinois will be constitutional carry, so our side has all the chips, and I expect that the law crafted is going to be much more favorable than the one in the last session. Furthermore, we're now in a position where other circuit courts can heed the word and rule the same way, OR they can create a circuit split. Either one is good for us. This is just the sort of victory we needed -- a definitive carry ruling on the circuit level.

hoffmang
12-11-2012, 12:15 PM
There is some chance that this case doesn't go up as a decent shall issue bill is ready and this will allow them to get the last couple of votes needed to push it over the top.

Also, this could go en-banc, but this win means the stuff needed to get to SCOTUS is now on the table.

-Gene

CalBear
12-11-2012, 12:18 PM
what does constitutional carry mean?
Constitutional carry means the residents of a state have the right to bear arms without obtaining a special carry permit from the state. In other words, the constitution secures their right to carry, and they need nothing beyond that to do so. In Illinois, a resident would need to secure an FOID card and would then be able to carry, if no law is passed within 180 days and the ruling is allowed to take effect.

taperxz
12-11-2012, 12:18 PM
There is some chance that this case doesn't go up as a decent shall issue bill is ready and this will allow them to get the last couple of votes needed to push it over the top.

Also, this could go en-banc, but this win means the stuff needed to get to SCOTUS is now on the table.

-Gene

With Gura getting a win here, how will it influence last weeks appearance in the ninth? Is this type of thing something they will look at closely?

defcon
12-11-2012, 12:24 PM
Constitutional carry means the residents of a state have the right to bear arms without obtaining a special carry permit from the state. In other words, the constitution secures their right to carry, and they need nothing beyond that to do so. In Illinois, a resident would need to secure an FOID card and would then be able to carry, if no law is passed within 180 days and the ruling is allowed to take effect.

thank you.

more gun sales for America!

snowdog650
12-11-2012, 12:41 PM
My guess is that they will try to follow California's lead ... MAY issue per the guidelines of individual counties.

The majority of the state will essentially be SHALL issue, but areas of population (i.e., Chicago and 'burbs, East St. Louis, maybe Rockford and Springfield) will continue to be MAY issue, which essentially means SHALL NOT issue in those areas.

CalBear
12-11-2012, 12:57 PM
My guess is that they will try to follow California's lead ... MAY issue per the guidelines of individual counties.

The majority of the state will essentially be SHALL issue, but areas of population (i.e., Chicago and 'burbs, East St. Louis, maybe Rockford and Springfield) will continue to be MAY issue, which essentially means SHALL NOT issue in those areas.
Not so sure about that this time around. IL almost met the 3/5 requirement in their last attempt at a decent carry bill to override the governor. The status quo now is constitutional carry in 180 days. Not sure why the legislature would willingly pass a crappy may issue bill when the existing law will be struck in the event of inaction.

speedrrracer
12-11-2012, 1:02 PM
Also keep in mind that the state is up against a 180 day hard dead line to pass a carry law. If they don't pass some sort of law by that time then they get Constitutional carry. So the almost 3/5 carry majority has tons of leverage and the anti side has almost none.

How is this possible? I'm totally lost on where this came from....

CalBear
12-11-2012, 1:07 PM
How is this possible? I'm totally lost on where this came from....
The circuit panel told the district courts to declare the current Illinois carry law unconstitutional and place a permanent injunction on it. The court stayed their decision for 180 days to give the state time to create a new law. So the current law that bans carry in Illinois will be void in 180 days. If there is no new law in place by then, carry be will unrestricted.

OleCuss
12-11-2012, 1:08 PM
How is this possible? I'm totally lost on where this came from....

The court put a 180 day stay on their ruling so that the Illinois legislature could re-do their firearms-related laws to comply with the constitutional requirements.

The assumption above was that if the laws are not revamped within the 180 day time frame, then the current law restricting carry is struck down in its entirety and there is no legal restriction on carry in the state of Illinois.

Unlikely to happen.

Edit: CalBear beat me too it! I'll not delete my response partly because there is just a tiny bit more added.

HowardW56
12-11-2012, 1:10 PM
My guess is that they will try to follow California's lead ... MAY issue per the guidelines of individual counties.

The majority of the state will essentially be SHALL issue, but areas of population (i.e., Chicago and 'burbs, East St. Louis, maybe Rockford and Springfield) will continue to be MAY issue, which essentially means SHALL NOT issue in those areas.


And the lawsiuits will continue....

Librarian
12-11-2012, 1:20 PM
Let us not dilute the discussion - this started different enough from http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=655147, but now they begin to duplicate.

Please take further discussion to the other thread.