Federal court in illinois, yes illinois sided with our side on right to carry laws!

[gunforhire 826]

Today for the First time EVER a federal court in illinois, yes illinois sided with our side on right to carry laws! more details to follow!

 

Yes, I just received a phone call from NRA counsel. They are still dissecting. There was a long dissent but the court sided with our cause. The supremes will have to hear our cases now!!!!!

 

 

http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/2012/12/big_win_for_gun-rights_groups_federal_appeals_court_tosses_state_ban_on_carrying_concealed_weapons.html

[iRescue 0]

What does this mean for NJ now?

 

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[gunforhire 826]

It means a lot. More details to follow asap. This case strengthens our RTK case heading to the SCOTUS.

[Malsua 1,422]

Look for a NJ "justifiable need" clause in the new law, just like NJ, which will result in a defacto NO ISSUE, just like NJ.

 

-----------------------

-SPRINGFIELD-In a huge win for gun-rights groups, a federal appeals court in Chicago Tuesday tossed the state's ban on carrying concealed weapons and gave Illinois' Legislature 180 days to craft a law legalizing concealed carry.

"The debate is over. We won. And there will be a statewide carry law in 2013," said Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.

In its majority opinion, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in two cases downstate that challenged the state's longstanding prohibition against carrying concealed weapons.

"We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home," Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's majority opinion.

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense," he continued.

"Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden," Posner wrote.

"The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions," he continued.

"Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public," Posner said.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who was defending the state's prohibition of concealed carry, did not have an immediate response to the ruling released Tuesday morning

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

WOW, just WOW

[raz-0 1,259]

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/NY0PAT7W.pdf

 

The decision is a nice read. Some serious common sense and rationality in there regardless of subject.

[NicePants 58]

Illinois (or at the very least Cook County) is going to go down kicking and screaming. I have a feeling that this is going to result in something like NJ, where no one will be able to get one without having been murdered thrice prior, but at least the state will be able to say "B-B-BUT WE ALLOW PEOPLE TO CARRY, JUST PEOPLE THAT NEED IT HURRDURR."

[Malsua 1,422]

http://www.ca7.uscou...mp/NY0PAT7W.pdf

 

The decision is a nice read. Some serious common sense and rationality in there regardless of subject.

 

Bah, I just read it. Read page 17. This ruling supports NY/NJ "justifiable need" clauses.

 

In discussion of laws that are used, they reference the NY case of Kachalsky v county of Weschester, supra. "This is the inverse of laws that forbid dangerous persons to have handguns; New York places the burden on the applicant to show that he needs a handgun to ward off dangerous persons. As the court epxlain, 2012 WL 5907502 at*13, New York "decided not to ban handgun possession, but to limit to those individuals who have an actual reason ('proper cause') to carry the weapon. In this vein, licensing is oriented to the Second Amendment's protetions....

[Melgamatic 66]

WOW, just WOW

 

It means nothing. Concealed Carry is legal in NJ, and how does that help you?

[mcbethr 42]

It means nothing. Concealed Carry is legal in NJ, and how does that help you?

 

I think this is a victory since it defines Heller / McDonald as applicable outside the home. BUT if I were an Illinois resident, I wouldn't go ordering the Crossbreed Holsters just yet... I think that Illinois will look to New York as an example to "split the baby." I can picture them requiring that people get their permits from their Sheriff instead of the state.

 

Sheriffs in rural areas would issue permits with less restrictions than in Cook County, just like NYC.

 

This would let them placate the middle aged white males in rural parts of the state, but allow the Cook County Machine to keep their permits for trusted friends and "donations."

 

Also be on the lookout for "NYC style" exemption for Chicago where your county-issued carry permit is valid everywhere but the place where it is needed most.

 

Oh, and expect further indignities, such as making the physical permit size hard to place in a wallet or requiring that applicants list their intentions to apply in a newspaper.

 

But yes, it is a victory. Now, back to reality in New Jersey. Where we have concealed carry. Haven't you heard?

 

One more edit. To really understand the New York State system, think of a genuine may-issue system as it might function in New Jersey. Sheriffs in Cumberland, Sussex, Warren and Hunderdon counties would probably give out permits the way they issue FID cards. Live in Mercer county or Middlesex? It would pretty much be the same way it is now , no-issue.

 

I think right now, the Attorney General in Illinois is thinking to herself: "What's in this for me" and Illinois will try to either split the baby with their permitting system, or tax it so that the cost is only accessible to those who need it the least, ie: those middle aged white males who live in rural areas.

[Zed's_Dead 16]

Bah, I just read it. Read page 17. This ruling supports NY/NJ "justifiable need" clauses.

 

In discussion of laws that are used, they reference the NY case of Kachalsky v county of Weschester, supra. "This is the inverse of laws that forbid dangerous persons to have handguns; New York places the burden on the applicant to show that he needs a handgun to ward off dangerous persons. As the court epxlain, 2012 WL 5907502 at*13, New York "decided not to ban handgun possession, but to limit to those individuals who have an actual reason ('proper cause') to carry the weapon. In this vein, licensing is oriented to the Second Amendment's protetions....

 

It does not support justifiable needs clauses. That is just their explanation of the NY decision. If you continue reading, you'll see that the 7th circuit disagreed with the reasoning behind the 2nd circuit's upholding of the NY permitting process.

 

Our principal reservation about

the Second Circuit ’s analy s i s (apart from

disagreement, unnecessary to bore the reader with,

with some of the historical analysis in the opinion

we regard the historical issues as settled by

Heller) is its suggestion that the Second Amendment should

have much greater scope inside the home than

outside simply because other provisions of the Constitution

have been held to make that distinction. For example,

the opinion states that “in Lawrence v. Texas, the

[supreme] Court emphasized that the state’s efforts to

regulate private sexual conduct between consenting adults

is especially suspect when it intrudes into the home.”

2012 WL 5907502, at *9. Well of course the interest in

having sex inside one’s home is much greater than

the interest in having sex on the sidewalk in front of

one’s home. But the interest in self-protection is as great

outside as inside the home.

[Malsua 1,422]

It does not support justifiable needs clauses. That is just their explanation of the NY decision. If you continue reading, you'll see that the 7th circuit disagreed with the reasoning behind the 2nd circuit's upholding of the NY permitting process.

 

Our principal reservation about

the Second Circuit ’s analy s i s (apart from

disagreement, unnecessary to bore the reader with,

with some of the historical analysis in the opinion

we regard the historical issues as settled by

Heller) is its suggestion that the Second Amendment should

have much greater scope inside the home than

outside simply because other provisions of the Constitution

have been held to make that distinction. For example,

the opinion states that “in Lawrence v. Texas, the

[supreme] Court emphasized that the state’s efforts to

regulate private sexual conduct between consenting adults

is especially suspect when it intrudes into the home.”

2012 WL 5907502, at *9. Well of course the interest in

having sex inside one’s home is much greater than

the interest in having sex on the sidewalk in front of

one’s home. But the interest in self-protection is as great

outside as inside the home.

 

And you left out the part past there where they talk about Illinois failing to justify any level of scrutiny. I certainly hope this means that we have a right to self defense outside of the home. It will still be many years before any of this might matter to us.

[Dan 177]

All this does for us is to help get rid of the argument that some courts are ruling on that Heller and McDonald only provide 2A rights within the home. This case will force SCOTUS to decide on whether or not 2A applies only in the home or also out in public. Yea sure, the founding fathers intended individual rights as stated in the second amendment they applied to the Constitution to only be allowed practiced in one's own home. <sarcasm>

 

Once SCOTUS rules that 2A applies outside of the home, which they will if they have an ounce of dignity and respect for the Constitution, this will hopefully be the nail in the coffin for the "justifiable need" BS that we and a few other "may issue" states are using in order to illegally suppress our R2KBA.