IL carry ban ruling

[DThurston]

Short version is that the 7th Cir Ct of Appeals has declared IL's ban on carry to be unconstitutional.

Haven't studied the ruling in depth yet, but it looks good.

They address and affirm the need for defense outside the home may be greater than in the home. This is something the Heller case didn't address.

Read and discuss: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/NY0NCC0B.pdf

I can't access the ruling at the above link now, so here's the NRA-ILA's copy of it: http://www.nraila.org/media/10814375/stevensopinion.pdf

Here's the NRA-ILA post on it: NRA-ILA | Victory for Self-Defense and the Second Amendment

 

[Liberty1911]

Excellent!

 

[Titanium_Frost]

SWEET!!!

 

[drillsgt]

Sounds like good progress, I would eventually like to be able to visit IL but won't spend any of my money there right now.

 

[T.Lex]

Gotta love Posner.

The appellees ask us to repudiate the Court’s historical analysis. That we can’t do. Nor can we ignore the implication of the analysis that the constitutional right of armed self defense is broader than the right to have a gun in one’s home....

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.

He's pretty anti-gun, IMHO, but he is very much in favor of following precedent and a darn good writer.

Also, and I cannot emphasize this enough, the foundation for this ruling is only partially Heller. More, it is the legal writing of guys like John Lott and others who published their pro-carry work in law reviews and opinion pieces.

In an irony that I particularly appreciate, Lott's work began as an exercise in the "Chicago" school of economics - an attempt to reduce societal issues into economic ones. Posner is a HUGE proponent of that kind of analysis.

Yipee!

ETA:

In sum, the empirical literature on the effects of allowing the carriage of guns in public fails to establish a pragmatic defense of the Illinois law.

 

[CitiusFortius]

Just saw this, rushed to INGO to post if it had not already been done. This is really cool!

I think we all know it will be appealed, but this is the first (to my knowledge) court decision that upholds the right to carry.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

This. is. fantastic.

Seriously absolutely positively fantastic.

The dominos have begun to fall... Can you hear it?

They're gaining momentum.

 

[T.Lex]

I doubt the Supreme Court will hear it. I don't see enough votes to accept it. Now, if it had affirmed the dismissal, I think they would have. But, this is the logical extension of Heller. Now, it might get an en banc rehearing - and I'd be a bit worried how that would come out, but with Posner writing, there are a few judges that would be reluctant to depart from his analysis. And, if Easterbrook agrees with him, then any en banc decision is likely to affirm, too.

Plus, there aren't any other cases (that I know of) that would indicate a split in the circuits. In fact, as Posner points out, Illinois is basically the only state with this kind of blanket ban on carrying. The 7th Circuit reached a decision supported by recent precedent. There's very little here to get the attention of enough justices to get it to the next level, IMHO.

(Yippee, still.)

 

[Indy60]

A good start but would a law to allow CC have to be introduced and go through the State Legislature for approval? The issue can be tied up for years to come but it is a major hurdle for the court ruling.

 

[T.Lex]

I don't know if the IL legislature can pull together a licensing scheme in time, but if they can't, I think IL would have a variation of constitutional carry until they did.

This appellate court decision is not yet final. The decision itself imposed a 180 day delay, but it will likely become final when the US Supreme Court declines to accept it (which is how I'd wager). So, figure some time next summer, the IL legislature will either have to pass something to allow for carrying, or there will be no enforceable law on the books over there.

 

[jgreiner]

About friggen time. I literally DESPISE having to travel through that state, and whenever I do, I refuse to stop for so much as a can of pop, I won't spend a DIME in it.

I do use their RESTROOMS however.

 

[ryknoll3]

If you read the decision, Posner held up NY and their recent 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals victory to require "Just cause" to acquire a carry permit. If this ruling stands, I suspect the legislature will craft a may-issue system similar to NY or CA and require "cause" for acquiring a permit.

 

[downzero]

I doubt the Supreme Court will hear it. I don't see enough votes to accept it. Now, if it had affirmed the dismissal, I think they would have.

The Supreme Court doesn't hear cases because they were decided incorrectly unless it's a death case.

Unless the Maryland case goes the other way, I don't see them hearing a similar case for a long time.

 

[T.Lex]

The Supreme Court doesn't hear cases because they were decided incorrectly unless it's a death case.

haha - Don't I know it!

But, I think they would take it because a majority would want to preserve Heller.

 

[45calibre]

by cause do they mean some sort of prior incident?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If you read the decision, Posner held up NY and their recent 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals victory to require "Just cause" to acquire a carry permit. If this ruling stands, I suspect the legislature will craft a may-issue system similar to NY or CA and require "cause" for acquiring a permit.

"The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment compelled the appeals court to rule the ban unconstitutional, the judges said. But the court gave 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."

Yep...a battle was won, but the enemy will regroup and counter-attack.

 

[T.Lex]

by cause do they mean some sort of prior incident?

That's an open question. Some cases suggest "cause" can be as simple as a desire for self-defense, with a minimum showing of need. Other places require something more substantive.

It will be a long time (probably never) that there will be a common standard across the country for places that have "may issue" style restrictions.

 

[downzero]

I want to know what it's like to be this recent law school graduate:
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/cornell-law-review/upload/Bishop-final.pdf

Who just had his research cited by Richard Posner.

 

[T.Lex]

I want to know what it's like to be this recent law school graduate:
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/cornell-law-review/upload/Bishop-final.pdf

Who just had his research cited by Richard Posner.

haha

No kidding. Can't find him on LinkedIn.

ETA - but I think this is his Twitter (but he doesn't use it much, for now):
https://twitter.com/Bishopus

 

[cosermann]

I'd encourage everyone to actually read the ruling.