PDA

View Full Version : Illinois Supreme Court Rules Right to Keep and Bear Arms Extends Outside the home!


Calzona
09-12-2013, 10:07 AM
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/09/robert-farago/illinois-supreme-court-right-keep-bear-arms-extends-outside-home/

As the Seventh Circuit correctly noted, neither Heller nor McDonald expressly limits the second amendment’s protections to the home. On the contrary both decisions contain language strongly suggesting if not outright confirming that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home. Moreover, if Heller means what it says, and “individual self-defense” is indeed “the central component” of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms (Heller, 554 U.S. at 599), then it would make little sense to restrict that right to the home, as “[c]onfrontations are not limited to the home.” Moore, 702 F.3d at 935-36. Indeed, Heller itself recognizes as much when it states that “the right to have arms *** was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.” (Emphasis added.) Heller, 554 U.S. at 593-94

chris
09-12-2013, 10:13 AM
I would love for this ruling to be used against the legislature and kamala harris.

North86
09-12-2013, 10:21 AM
Seems like one for the first practical applications of Heller and McDonald.

We'll see.

Southwest Chuck
09-12-2013, 10:23 AM
Nice, but shouldn't this be posted in the National 2A forum?

Calzona
09-12-2013, 10:30 AM
:hide:

Nice, but shouldn't this be posted in the National 2A forum?

Southwest Chuck
09-12-2013, 12:13 PM
:hide:

LOL ! :rolleyes:

With all the new forum changes, old habits are hard to break. It takes getting used to for sure on where to post things .... ;) but hey, good news is good news where ever it's posted :D

Untamed1972
09-12-2013, 12:36 PM
LOL ! :rolleyes:

With all the new forum changes, old habits are hard to break. It takes getting used to for sure on where to post things .... ;) but hey, good news is good news where ever it's posted :D

Yep....and if enough of these rulings come out it's going to be harder and harder for CA and other hold-out states to keep arguing their continued BS.

DannyInSoCal
09-12-2013, 12:38 PM
First concealed carry and now this -

I finally have a little - VERY LITTLE - Respect for bear fans....

flyer898
09-12-2013, 1:16 PM
The 17 year-old in that case was with someone else's hard. The circumstances suggest to me he is a gang member. His loaded handgun (that he and all his friends denied he possessed) had the serial number scratched off.

His on I conviction for one felony was reversed. The second felony, for being a minor in possession was affirmed.

The decision is relatively short and available at the Illinois Supreme Court's website. I am sending this from my phone or I would indie the link.

Rossi357
09-12-2013, 2:08 PM
The 17 year-old in that case was with someone else's hard. The circumstances suggest to me he is a gang member. His loaded handgun (that he and all his friends denied he possessed) had the serial number scratched off.

His on I conviction for one felony was reversed. The second felony, for being a minor in possession was affirmed.

The decision is relatively short and available at the Illinois Supreme Court's website. I am sending this from my phone or I would indie the link.

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

Librarian
09-12-2013, 3:07 PM
See also Eugene Volokh - http://www.volokh.com/2013/09/12/illinois-supreme-court-second-amendment-protects-carrying-outside-home/

That post offers what seems to be a decent scorecard: This deepens the lower appellate court on split on whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry a gun in public. Most of the decisions say “no.” See, e.g.,
Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 96 (2d Cir. 2012);
Woolard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013);
People v. Dykes, 209 P.3d 1, 49 (Cal. 2009);
Little v. United States, 989 A.2d 1096 (D.C. 2010);
People v. Dawson, 934 N.E.2d 598 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010);
Williams v. State, 10 A.3d 1167 (Md. 2011);
Commonwealth v. McCollum, 945 N.E.2d 937 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011);
People v. Perkins, 880 N.Y.S.2d 209 (App. Div. 2009). Indeed, McCollum went so far as to say that possessing a gun in someone else’s home can be punished, without regard to whether the resident has allowed or even asked the gun owner to bring the gun.

On the other side are
Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012), plus now the Illinois Supreme Court decision,
Ex parte Roque Cesar Nido Lanausse, No. KLAN201000562 (P.R. Cir. 2011), http://www.volokh.com/?p=46217, which seems to hold the same, and
People v. Yanna, 824 N.W.2d 241 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012), which so states, albeit in dictum.

Paladin
09-12-2013, 3:17 PM
Nice, but shouldn't this be posted in the National 2A forum?Actually, this belongs in the 2nd A Litigation forum since: (1) it has nothing to do w/either California or national (i.e., other states') or federal politics; and (2) is is the holding/opinion of a court (i.e., the result of litigation).

But, yeah, as others have said, this is like a, oh, shot glass of cold water to a man dying of thirst.... A small taste of what we deserve.

Librarian
09-12-2013, 3:22 PM
Actually, this belongs in the 2nd A Litigation forum since: (1) it has nothing to do w/either California or national (i.e., other states') or federal politics; and (2) is is the holding/opinion of a court (i.e., the result of litigation).


Yes, sorry, moved it to the wrong forum. Litigation it is. Moved again.

mlevans66
09-12-2013, 3:59 PM
I would love for this ruling to be used against the legislature and kamala harris.

Why so she can plainly dismiss it as if speaking a dead language? They don't care!

Sakiri
09-12-2013, 4:34 PM
Why so she can plainly dismiss it as if speaking a dead language? They don't care!

I should like to plainly dismiss her. -_-

Kharn
09-12-2013, 6:24 PM
I wouldn't be surprised to see this cited in Woollard's response in a few days. It shows that the IL SC is able to read and understand both Moore and Heller/McDonald, while the 4th Circuit is not.

fizux
09-12-2013, 8:58 PM
Yes, sorry, moved it to the wrong forum. Litigation it is. Moved again.
I suppose I could join Paladin and pile on with...
Dupe: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=822034