NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Newsworthy => Topic started by: Dan W on February 22, 2013, 05:20:15 PM
-
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today won a significant victory for concealed carry when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals let stand a December ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that forces Illinois to adopt a concealed carry law, thus affirming that the right to bear arms exists outside the home.
The ruling came in Moore v. Madigan, a case filed by SAF. The December opinion that now stands was written by Judge Richard Posner, who gave 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.” That clock is ticking, noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.
“Illinois lawmakers need to create some kind of licensing system or face the prospect of not having any regulations at all when Judge Posner’s deadline arrives,” Gottlieb said. “They need to act. They can no longer run and hide from this mandate.”
“We were delighted with Judge Posner’s ruling in December,” he continued, “and today’s decision by the entire circuit to allow his ruling to stand is a major victory, and not just for gun owners in Illinois. Judge Posner’s ruling affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms, itself, extends beyond the boundary of one’s front door.”
In December, Judge Posner wrote, “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.”
Judge Posner subsequently added, “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 now up to the legislature,” Gottlieb said, “to craft a statute that recognizes the right of ordinary citizens to carry outside the home, without a sea of red tape or a requirement to prove any kind of need beyond the cause of personal protection.”
The ruling also affects a similar case filed by the National Rifle Association known as Shepard v. Madigan.
-
The appeal will probably go right up to the SCOTUS. The question is "will they hear it?"
If they do then they have the opportunity to either reverse themselves, fine tune Heller vs DC, or broaden the 2A closer to its original intent, which is NO infringement what so ever.
-
Makes you wonder if the anti's will decide not to tempt fate and just drop it.
-
Awesome \o/
....
Being a Constitutional case, it might head on up to the SCOTUS, buying IL some more time....
-
Out of curiosity...
Given the 7th's decision to uphold the lower court's thing.... does the 180 days still count from when lower court issued their opinion/verdict ?
And.... while it's undoubtedly being appealed to SCOTUS... do they still have to come up with the new laws within the original 180 days ?
And .... just to be weird...
Lets say they don't come up with new laws by whatever deadline is appropriate.
How do you punish the State for being in violation of not writing the new laws ?
Also, given NY and other state's current gun ban / etc laws coming down, what determines 'reasonable' in the original court's decision ?
-
I believe the threat to Illinois lawmakers is that unregulated freedom will break out all over, and they can do nothing to stop it
-
As I remember this from back in Dec
If they don't do it by the end of 180 days .....Open carry is automatically allowed anywhere in Ill.
(for any type of weapon) that 180 day limit is only a Stay for right now on it taking affect.
The Talking heads also theorized that they wouldn't want to appeal this to SCOTUS on the worry that It might back fired on them and make the resulting ruling in to a nation wide ruling instead of just affecting Ill.
there is also some thing about Ill. having to work with the Gun owners groups in Ill. to draft the new laws and the Gun owners groups have some sort of veto or refusal power on it ???
So they can't just Lame duck it.....and the clock is ticking
-
I think it has more to do with concealed carry