I have just read that the 7th circuit of appeals ruled that the 2nd admendment applies to outside the home in IL. I am on my phone and can't post links. Hopefully someone will post the links.

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

 

And I quote:

 

Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians.

But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be

attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in

his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower.

A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a

protective order against a violent ex-husband is more

vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from

her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense

claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than

the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with

doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under

her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim,

while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter.

That creates an arbitrary difference. 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 not a property right—a right

to kill a houseguest who in a fit of aesthetic fury tries

to slash your copy of Norman Rockwell’s painting

Santa with Elves. That is not self-defense, and this case

like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense.

 

A gun is a potential danger to more people if carried

in public than just kept in the home. But the other

side of this coin is that knowing that many law-abiding

citizens are walking the streets armed may make criminals

timid. Given that in Chicago, at least, most murders

occur outside the home,

 

A blanket prohibition on carrying gun in public

prevents a person from defending himself anywhere

except inside his home; and so substantial a curtailment

of the right of armed self-defense requires a

greater showing of justification than merely that the

public might benefit on balance from such a curtailment,

though there is no proof it would.

 

Read the whole decision, it is brilliant.

:clapping:

Holy f****** c***, that just made my day. Judge Posner actually got it right. Here is a news report (nothing on the 7th circuit docket yet). This virtually guarantees the issue will be heard by the S Ct with a split between the 2nd and 7th Circuits.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/court-strikes-down-illinois-concealed-carry-law-175533112.html

 

 

 

 

"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," Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's majority opinion. "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."

The court ordered its ruling stayed "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.

I hope this opens up carry for NJ, MD, NYC, etc. I'm in NJ 50% of the time during the week and would love to see these BS laws disappear from all states. However, Mcdonald vs Chicago really did not have the impact that I thought it would....

 

It's a shame that we have to rely on a branch of government to "okay" a right that's already an absolute right. F-ed up!

I hope this opens up carry for NJ, MD, NYC, etc.

 

It won't. CC is not banned by law in NJ. It's "banned" in practicality but that's not what this court decision tries to remedy. NJ still sucks.

It won't. CC is not banned by law in NJ. It's "banned" in practicality but that's not what this court decision tries to remedy. NJ still sucks.

 

Exactly right. The decision even goes on to mention how New York's restrictions that require a "proper cause" (same as NJ's Justifiable need) are legitimate and acceptable under this ruling. This ruling doesn't do squat for anyone other than turning Illinois from No issue to defacto No issue, just like NJ.

It's a step in the right direction. IL may suprise us all and create/revise laws for the "spirit of" the court ruling. Then again the dicta mentions NY's Kachalsky v. Cacace appeal and how it differed from IL because it allowed some form of carry in some instances. I'd like to hear what would be an acceptable legislative change in light of the ruling. So for instance, if IL adopts a "may issue" scheme like NJ, would that fulfill the ruling? Or would the court jump back in and say only a "shall issue" scheme such as FL or PA is acceptable? We may have to wait 180 days to find out.

This does nothing for us in NJ and will do nothing for Illinois residents.

 

"The court ordered its ruling stayed "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.

 

Ilinois will impose the same may issue as NJ and not have to issue anyone like here! NJ will never be a shall issue state!

It's a step in the right direction. IL may suprise us all and create/revise laws for the "spirit of" the court ruling. Then again the dicta mentions NY's Kachalsky v. Cacace appeal and how it differed from IL because it allowed some form of carry in some instances. I'd like to hear what would be an acceptable legislative change in light of the ruling. So for instance, if IL adopts a "may issue" scheme like NJ, would that fulfill the ruling? Or would the court jump back in and say only a "shall issue" scheme such as FL or PA is acceptable? We may have to wait 180 days to find out.

 

The courts have already upheld the "may issue" as being a reasonable restriction.

This does nothing for us in NJ and will do nothing for Illinois residents.

 

"The court ordered its ruling stayed "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.

 

Ilinois will impose the same may issue as NJ and not have to issue anyone like here! NJ will never be a shall issue state!

 

I guess you didn't read the ruling then? The decision actually references the Appeals court in the case in NY, where the court upheld NY's restrictive model, and pretty much ripped it a new one. Based on the wording they used, I don't see how the state could pass anything but "shall issue" without getting dragged back into court.

I guess you didn't read the ruling then? The decision actually references the Appeals court in the case in NY, where the court upheld NY's restrictive model, and pretty much ripped it a new one. Based on the wording they used, I don't see how the state could pass anything but "shall issue" without getting dragged back into court.

 

Yes I did read it. And the state will do everything they can even being dragged back to court. Have you forgot that "may issue" has already been upheld by many courts as a reasonable restriction and that is just what they will do there. What is it you don't understand?

For those that didn't bother to read one of the more interesting opinions in a while, here is the quote you might want to look at:

 

The New York gun law upheld in Kachalsky, although

one of the nation’s most restrictive such laws (under

the law’s “proper cause” standard, an applicant for a

gun permit must demonstrate a need for self-defense

greater than that of the general public, such as being

the target of personal threats, id. at *3, *8), is less restrictive

than Illinois’s law. 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.

What is it you don't understand?

 

Your negativism on this issue, mostly. This is in EVERY way a good court decision. It is not the end of the war, and we might not even win the war, that is true. What I don't get is looking down on won fight in that war.

This ruling is very significant and very helpful to us in at least two respects: 1) It is the first appelate decision to hold that the 2A applies outside the home (our case will be heard by the 3rd circuit and the Maryland case (favorably decided at the District Court level) will be heard by the 4th circuit). With the 2nd circuit going the other way, this guarantees that the issue will be before the supreme court. 2) Judges, like most people, don't like to go out on a limb. If the judges on the 3rd circuit are at least willing to consider the issue dispassionately and with an open mind in light of Heller/McDonald, this 7th circuit case will give them cover if they are leaning even slightly towards overturning NJ law. They won't be the first circuit court to hold that the 2A applies outside the home. Judge Posner is a very respected jurist. If the 3rd circuit judges accept that the core of the 2A is self-defense and that self-defense is at least equally as important outside the home as in, they will ned to consider whether a statute that de facto bans concealed carry can withstand scrutiny. The Illinois decision most definitely opens the door a bit to possible (although I think unlikely) victory in the NJ case at the 3rd circuit level. Either way, this goes before the S Ct. next year.

NRA vows IL will become a "shall issue" state:

 

http://www.thetrutha...ll-issue-state/

 

After the 7th District Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision striking down Illinois’ blanket ban on concealed carry, the National Rifle Association has vowed that the Land of Lincoln will become a “shall issue” state. According to their man on the ground, the NRA’s working with state legislators to craft a new bill (within the 180-day time limit set by the Court) that will require the state to issue residents a concealed carry permit unless the licensing authority can provide a compelling reason a resident shouldn’t be able to exercise their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. “Illinois will not be New Jersey,” Todd Vandermeis told TTAG, referring to the Garden’s State’s bureaucratic blockade of its citizens’ gun rights. . . .

 

“The anti-gunners have been preparing for this contingency, but we will not have the law that they want: New Jersey on steroids. We have the majority in both chambers. We will have a Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida-style law.” ...

Funny how NJ is used as a poster child for what won't happen in IL.

Funny how NJ is used as a poster child for what won't happen in IL.

 

Not funny just sad, very very sad

Great news, congrats to IL. Sadly NJ is far too corrupt for this to ever happen here. NJ was smart enough, as it is with many other things, not to make something illegal but rather to require a "permit" for it with a few "restrictions" and that is stricter than making it outright illegal and far harder to ever undo.

One can hope...

Great news, congrats to IL. Sadly NJ is far too corrupt for this to ever happen here. NJ was smart enough, as it is with many other things, not to make something illegal but rather to require a "permit" for it with a few "restrictions" and that is stricter than making it outright illegal and far harder to ever undo.

 

I think that the lawsuit's in NJ, NY & MD are similar enough that any one will addresses NJ's "justifiable need" firewall. They just need to get in front of SCOTUS. IL & DC are one step behind us sort of because they don't even have a carry provision to challenge. They have to win first for a mechanism to carry then go at it again if the offering is anything less than "shall issue". Remember that when a state or city complies with their interpretation of a ruling, the judge isn't in the room guiding the process. If there is no sympathetic entity (AG or Gov) forcing the legislature to tow the line, then we the people have to bring it back to court. One of these cases like NJ's will have to make it there. I think it's mandatory otherwise "may issue" will continue to muck up the purity of the amendment. I'll bet Justice Scalia is chomping at the bit over these cases. His Heller opinion has been so misrepresented on some levels I'm sure he wants to set it straight for good.

 

Your negativism on this issue, mostly. This is in EVERY way a good court decision. It is not the end of the war, and we might not even win the war, that is true. What I don't get is looking down on won fight in that war.

Agree 100%

Funny how NJ is used as a poster child for what won't happen in IL.

 

Your so right. You people think that this case has anything to do helping in NJ you are dreaming. Until the state rids itself of the corrupt judges and politicians then and only then will something happen.

Your negativism on this issue, mostly. This is in EVERY way a good court decision. It is not the end of the war, and we might not even win the war, that is true. What I don't get is looking down on won fight in that war.

 

Ya. Like Heller was a great decision! It's not called negativism. It's called realism!

I think that the lawsuit's in NJ, NY & MD are similar enough that any one will addresses NJ's "justifiable need" firewall. They just need to get in front of SCOTUS. IL & DC are one step behind us sort of because they don't even have a carry provision to challenge. They have to win first for a mechanism to carry then go at it again if the offering is anything less than "shall issue". Remember that when a state or city complies with their interpretation of a ruling, the judge isn't in the room guiding the process. If there is no sympathetic entity (AG or Gov) forcing the legislature to tow the line, then we the people have to bring it back to court. One of these cases like NJ's will have to make it there. I think it's mandatory otherwise "may issue" will continue to muck up the purity of the amendment. I'll bet Justice Scalia is chomping at the bit over these cases. His Heller opinion has been so misrepresented on some levels I'm sure he wants to set it straight for good.

 

Hey I have an idea. Why don't one of you guys just conceal carry and get cought by the cops. Then you can be the test case for the supreme court and say even though NJ has a "may issue" law they don't issue at all.

Allow me to break it down for you: There are two issues that the 3rd circuit must decide in the appeal of the NJ carry case: 1) Does the 2A right extend outside the home?; and 2) If the answer to 1 is "yes", does the NJ carry statute, in particular the "justifiable need" part of it, infringe upon or impermissibly burden that right? In the Illinois case, they only addressed question 1 and answered "yes" the 2A extends outside the home. That ruling most definitely a big deal and most definitely helps us in NJ get past the first hurdle. If the 3rd circuit agrees with the 7th on that question, the court will then need to consider whether the justifiable need standard passes muster under the 2A. ie does it impermissibly burden the 2A right utilizing the level of scrutiny found appropriate by the court (I'm guessing intermediate scrutiny). The 7th circuit really did not address this question -- whether may issue is ok -- directly (it would have been quite nice if they would have given a bit more guidance on the issue, but they didn't).

 

Let's assume that the 3rd circuit agrees that the 2A extends outside the home. Gura (if he is arguing this case) will basically need to argue that the NJ statute effectively acts as a complete ban on carry for most people (really not that hard to prove, as we know), except a very narrow, privileged class (retired police officers). If the 2A right extends outside the home, and is rooted in the fundamental right of self-defense, a law that can be arbitrarily abused by police chiefs and judges so as to effectively ban concealed carry can't pass muster under any level of scrutiny. At least that's how I hope it goes.

I'm loving it the rest of America is being freed !! And were stuck in the land of punish the good and coddle the wicked

The courts have already upheld the "may issue" as being a reasonable restriction.

The courts in another district have upheld "may issue" - this has no direct bearing on the 7th district. The way the law stands after this ruling is that "may issue" is legal in the 2nd district but not in the 7th. This is going to lead to SCOTUS hearing this issue, if they rule "may issue" is unconstitutional, "shall issue" will be come the law of the land, whether NJ likes it or not.

Wow, while this isn't doing anything at this moment for NJ the amount of negative responses is ridiculous.

 

This is a step in the right direction and can have in impact on us here in the PR of NJ.

 

Just glad other people haven't given up, because if everyone had that negative attitude, we would only see more and more restriction.

 

Wake up, this is another battle won in the war, look at it that way and join and do what you can or just give up and wait to see what you loose next.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow, while this isn't doing anything at this moment for NJ the amount of negative responses is ridiculous.

 

This is a step in the right direction and can have in impact on us here in the PR of NJ.

 

Just glad other people haven't given up, because if everyone had that negative attitude, we would only see more and more restriction.

 

Wake up, this is another battle won in the war, look at it that way and join and do what you can or just give up and wait to see what you loose next.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You're right but, of course, the fury over the DB who shot up the mall tonight will likely overshadow the importance of this ruling and how it's going to be portrayed by the media, right or wrong.