PDA

View Full Version : People v. Aguilar (Ill. Sept. 12, 2013) (2A extends beyond the home)


fizux
09-12-2013, 7:20 AM
People v. Aguilar (Ill. Sept. 12, 2013)
Issue: Illinois S.Ct. agrees with 7CA that the Second Amendment extends beyond the home.

Summary: 17 year-old's conviction for carrying a concealed/loaded weapon in public was reversed, as the statute at issue (Illinois' former complete ban on carry in public) was unconstitutional on its face. The defendant's conviction for being a minor in possession was upheld, and the case was remanded to the trial court for resentencing on the MIP charge.

Opinion: http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2013/112116.pdf

Prof. Eugene Volokh's take: http://www.volokh.com/2013/09/12/illinois-supreme-court-second-amendment-protects-carrying-outside-home/

press1280
09-12-2013, 1:26 PM
The IL SC followed Moore to the letter. Although they definitively ruled for the 2A outside the home, the Federal Circuits have been wishy washy with their opinions to avoid review at SCOTUS.
The hardcore "only in the home" bit was a creation of the Federal District courts which the circuits tossed in favor of their "well, the 2A may apply outside the home, but it's intermediate scrutiny and the state wants to prevent gun violence so they can license whoever they want and we're OK with that" line of reasoning.

mlevans66
09-12-2013, 2:58 PM
Well at least one more win in the books and a thousand, thousand more battles to fight!

VegasND
09-12-2013, 7:06 PM
This is some good news. It's nice to see there are courts that aren't going out of their way to negate SCOTUS decisions.

fizux
09-12-2013, 8:25 PM
SAF press release: http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=454

mjdlc805
09-15-2013, 8:01 AM
Am I missing something? If the US Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago have "affirmed" on our right to keep and bear arms for purposes of self defense outside our home then why are we still having these discussions . Why wasnt AB249 voted and approved on or why cant I go to my local Sherriffs dept and get my CCW. It is now clearer in reading the Supreme Courts rulings the definition of the 2A. It seems that our right here is "being infringded" unchecked by those whom we put our trust in including those who have asked for your donations and support and you know who those are. Can one of those who are hired to protect our rights show up at a court house or at the very least start a petition and or organize a showing to change current laws? I will do my part. I would sit infront of store and get signaqtures. I will do my part at the poles. But I dont have the time nor the resourses to get things started.

wjc
09-15-2013, 2:00 PM
:party:


My home state is crawling back from the cliff of stupidity!

Window_Seat
09-15-2013, 2:13 PM
Is this case worthy of FRAP 28(j) material in our CA9 cases (Richards v. Prieto, Peruta v. County of San Diego and Baker v. Kealoha)?

Erik.

press1280
09-16-2013, 2:18 AM
I don't know FRAP rules, I'm assuming it means the case is citeable? Answer to that is an emphatic YES!

fizux
09-27-2013, 9:26 PM
I don't know FRAP rules, I'm assuming it means the case is citeable? Answer to that is an emphatic YES!
Persuasive outside of Illinois, but binding on State Courts in IL.

wolfwood
09-28-2013, 8:49 AM
Is this case worthy of FRAP 28(j) material in our CA9 cases (Richards v. Prieto, Peruta v. County of San Diego and Baker v. Kealoha)?

Erik.

Chuck Michel (well signed by him but I am assuming Sean in reality) filed a 28j in Peruta already. Since its all in front of the same panel there is no need for us to file one.

ToldYouSo
09-29-2013, 5:57 PM
Chuck Michel (well signed by him but I am assuming Sean in reality) filed a 28j in Peruta already. Since its all in front of the same panel there is no need for us to file one.

Gura filed one two weeks ago in Richards as well.