Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-01-2018, 5:14 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,530
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default People v Chairez, IL Sup Ct - gun ban 1000 ft around parks violates 2A

http://reason.com/volokh/2018/02/01/...n-1000-feet-of

Partial quote of Volokh's quote of the case
Quote:
We find that the 1000-foot firearm restriction ... directly implicates the core right to self-defense .... [It] prohibits the carriage of weapons in public for self-defense, thereby reaching the core of the second amendment.
Case opinion: http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinio...018/121417.pdf
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-01-2018, 8:28 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,651
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Wow...an honest application of intermediate scrutiny and not rational basis dressed up as intermediate scrutiny. That was refreshing to read.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-02-2018, 7:00 AM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 856
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Wow...an honest application of intermediate scrutiny and not rational basis dressed up as intermediate scrutiny. That was refreshing to read.
And the decision was unanimous.
IL Supreme Court is 7 justices, currently 4 Democrat, 3 republican.
__________________
-------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-02-2018, 10:10 AM
jrr jrr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 618
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Oooh.. nice! I particularly like this part -
"Indeed an individual can preserve an undiminished right of self-defense by not entering one of the restricted areas. But the State conceded at oral argument that the 1000-foot firearm restriction zone around a public park would effectively prohibit the possession of a firearm for self-defense within a vast majority of the acreage in the city of Chicago because there are more than 600 parks in the city. Aside from the sheer number of locations and public areas that would qualify under the law, not only in the City of Chicago, but throughout Illinois, the most troubling aspect is the lack of any notification where the 1000-foot restriction zone starts and where it would end."

So... doesn't that apply to the restriction on carrying in "school zones" that we now have in CA as well? Would be awesome if the state was stupid enough to ask for cert. A grant and per curiam affirmation would be sweet!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-02-2018, 10:12 AM
DolphinFan DolphinFan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 791
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Next should be the 1,000 ft school zone.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-02-2018, 2:01 PM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 290
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

One step at a time folks, one step at a time!

I never thought Illinois would look like the land of freedom to a Californian!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-02-2018, 3:21 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,323
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
I never thought Illinois would look like the land of freedom to a Californian!
Indeed. Then again we live in "opposite land" in much of CA.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-03-2018, 12:19 AM
low67vdubinnocal's Avatar
low67vdubinnocal low67vdubinnocal is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: NoCal
Posts: 808
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Saw this yesterday on Fox. Every Second Amendment win is a win.
__________________
VW's Are not for Hippies...
Play's Cello in a marching band...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:16 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.