Reply With QuoteHopefully, enough interest and money will be generated to get this "core" question up to SCOTUS. The political climate of this state continues, unabashedly.Originally Posted by lockman
In a 19 page opinion released Friday district judge William D. Stiehl dismissed the action. Judge Stiehl issued the following:
In my opinion the judge has made a decision that your fundamental right to protect your life outside your home is not protected at all. In his world Strict scrutiny will apply in the home and no scrutiny of any law will apply outside the home.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court FINDS that the plaintiffs’ claim that the provisions of the State of
Illinois’ Unlawful Use of a Handgun and Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Handgun statutes do not
violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution because the bearing of a
firearm outside the home is not a core right protected by the Second Amendment.
Therefore, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED. The Court
GRANTS defendants’ motion to cite supplemental authority (Doc. 55). All remaining motions
are DENIED as moot.
http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index...attach_id=7983
Hopefully, enough interest and money will be generated to get this "core" question up to SCOTUS. The political climate of this state continues, unabashedly.
Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt
I'm still trying to figure out how to interpret "shall not be infringed" as "only inside your home"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I wonder if the judge wanted it to go to SCOTUS. Either to dodge the question, or get an even more broadly applicable pro-gun ruling. If not, he played right into the pro-gunners hands, because if SCOTUS rules a core right to carry outside the home, then it is going to be applicable nationwide.
What if SCOTUS rules its not a core right to carry outside the home, you might ask? HA! Remember the nationwide uproar over Kelo vs New Haven, the case just a few years ago where SCOTUS said eminent domain no longer meant private property could be seized only for public use, but could be seized for private use if there was a public benefit, too. There was a huge uproar over that wrongheaded ruling. A number of state legislatures enacted laws to protect property owners.
Imagine the uproar if SCOTUS ruled bearing arms meant only in your own home.
I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. (Because that is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--for each other and everybody else--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.)
Equality and consent of the governed: We're all equal. How can another legitimately govern me without my express consent?
+1
The fact that the judge uses wording almost exactly along the lines left vague by the degree of scrutiny in Heller makes me think he's either 1) an anti-gunner who wants to smugly point out that Heller only applies inside the home, or 2) pro-gun and wants this to go to SCOTUS in order to address the passive question the scrutiny in Heller raised. (i.e. Where do boundaries for constitutional rights exist, if at all? If you have an individual right to posess a firearm inside the home, what limits the application of constitutionality? Do constitutional rights end at your doorstep?)
The stark way in which the judge phrased his dismissal leads me to lean toward option 2. I would think that if an anti-2A judge wanted to dismiss this case and have it go away forever, he wouldn't want to shine a spotlight on unresolved issues by painting it in such clearly defined and specific terms, and then smacking pro-2A supporters in the face with it as if it were a gauntlet.
Hopefully, someone picks up the gauntlet and agrees to meet on the field at noon regardless of either way the ruling was intended by the judge.
ETA: Maybe someone could offer an opinion on what the outcome of the appeal will encompass? Is the level of appeal SCOTUS since this is a federal judge, or does it go to the muckety-muck court of appeals first? If overturned by the appeals court, what will the effect be? I guess, to summarize: I'm not familiar with the appeal process. What is the next step, and what will the effect be if ruled in our favor?
Last edited by Superlite27; 04-02-2012 at 08:44 AM.
On to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The same court that OVERTURNED Chicago'S range ban.
Nothing surprising here .. that court is getting to be like the 9th..
...and when they overturn it, it will mean everyone can carry in any manner they choose in Illinois. Defacto constitutional carry!
I wonder how this will affect reciprocity with other states?
Whatever it means for reciprocity, it would mean I would finally feel comfortable moving back home.
This judges decision is remarkably similar to an appellate court judge in central Illinois late last year. That judge also opined that the 2A doesn't extend beyound the walls of your house.
If that is the case, then the Freedom of Religion, of Assembly, of Speech, also do not "extend beyound the walls of your house".
So, who's going to tell all those churches they have to close their doors? What about the "assemblage" of people at sporting events?
Posting Permissions
