Edward Peruta
Regular Member
More will follow:
The Seventh Circuit has rendered a decsion that states in part:
Read the Chicago Tribune article at this link:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7034171.story
or the actual decison at this link:
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/1ef541..._Madigan_Opinion_Reversed_and_Remanded_2_.pdf
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. 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. 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 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 dec la ra tions of unconstitutionality and
permanent injunctions. 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.
The Seventh Circuit has rendered a decsion that states in part:
Read the Chicago Tribune article at this link:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7034171.story
or the actual decison at this link:
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/1ef541..._Madigan_Opinion_Reversed_and_Remanded_2_.pdf
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. 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. 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 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 dec la ra tions of unconstitutionality and
permanent injunctions. 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.
Last edited: