Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 56

Thread: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals holds that the Second Amendment applies outside the home

  1. #1
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    7th Circuit Court of Appeals holds that the Second Amendment applies outside the home

    In an opinion issued today in the Illinois case of Moore v. Madigan, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense … implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.”

    The opinion is a joy to read as Judge Posner proceeds to shred the historical and public policy arguments against carry put forward by Illinois.

    Here are some examples to warm your heart on this cold December afternoon:

    Excerpt ... Read more at http://monachuslex.com/?p=2254

  2. #2
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by John Pierce View Post
    In an opinion issued today in the Illinois case of Moore v. Madigan, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense … implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.”

    The opinion is a joy to read as Judge Posner proceeds to shred the historical and public policy arguments against carry put forward by Illinois.

    Here are some examples to warm your heart on this cold December afternoon:

    Excerpt ... Read more at http://monachuslex.com/?p=2254
    This is great news, but we'll have to wait to see how it plays out. Still, it's progress, one court decision at a time...

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Now the pro-Gun legislators need to oppose any carry-carry law PERIOD. Doing so will result in Vermont-style Constitutional Carry after the 180 day stay has expired.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    This is great news, but we'll have to wait to see how it plays out. Still, it's progress, one court decision at a time...
    ^^^^
    DITTO!!

    It would be nice for IL to not appeal the verdict.

    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    Now the pro-Gun legislators need to oppose any carry-carry law PERIOD. Doing so will result in Vermont-style Constitutional Carry after the 180 day stay has expired.
    Not a bad plan....however, politically...not sure it will happen in one of the most political states in the country. I would support it!
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    ^^^^
    DITTO!!

    It would be nice for IL to not appeal the verdict.

    Not a bad plan....however, politically...not sure it will happen in one of the most political states in the country. I would support it!
    If you live in Illinois and/or have membership in an Illinois Gun Rights group, contact your board immediately. Tell them to use their influence with Pro-gun legislators to block any legislation. Tell them you want Constitutional Carry!

    Contact the NRA too and tell them thanks for everything but to just go away now! The idiots will be leading the push for some form of 'privileged' concealed carry.
    Last edited by OC4me; 12-11-2012 at 03:46 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783
    This is good news but here is what I predict. They will come up with some sort of privilage card that will be a "may issue" and make it damn near impossible to obtain,just like all the other libtard states. California, even NY have them, but you must be the second coming to obtain it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Lasjayhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    294
    I really like this part from pp18-19

    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. In any event the court in
    Kachalsky used the distinction between self-protection inside and outside the home mainly to suggest that a
    standard less demanding than “strict scrutiny” should govern the constitutionality of laws limiting the carrying
    of guns outside the home; our analysis is not Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788 19
    based on degrees of scrutiny, but on Illinois’s failure to justify the most restrictive gun law of any of the 50 states.
    Last edited by Lasjayhawk; 12-11-2012 at 11:18 PM.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    Now the pro-Gun legislators need to oppose any carry-carry law PERIOD. Doing so will result in Vermont-style Constitutional Carry after the 180 day stay has expired.
    Upon appeal, the stay will be made indefinite. Expect the status quo in Illinois until the SCOTUS rules--two years from now. God help us if Obama gets to replace one of the pro-gun justices before then. This case could then reduce the 2A to "You can have certain guns at home." Thanks a lot to those who thought there wasn't a difference between the two candidates. Here's the difference: the justices they would appoint and how they will treat 2A cases.

    Cross your fingers and hope the makeup of the Court doesn't change in the next two or so years.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Upon appeal, the stay will be made indefinite. Expect the status quo in Illinois until the SCOTUS rules--two years from now.
    Eye, unfortunately you are correct sir.
    Last edited by OC4me; 12-12-2012 at 12:38 AM.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    "7th Circuit Court of Appeals holds that the Second Amendment applies outside the home"

    "In an opinion issued today in the Illinois case of Moore v. Madigan, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense … implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.”

    ************************************************** *****

    ...too bad the courts of Hawaii believe the 2nd Amendment means only HALF of what it says: The right to own/keepfirearms [and only if REGISTERED, that is] AT HOME. That's all...no carry.

    It didn't agree with the Maryland court (U.S. District Court Judge Benson E. Legg, July 2012?) case some time back in which Legg ruled that a "good and substantial reason" did NOT need to be given in order to obtain a CC permit, just the fact that the right existed was reason enough for obtaining a CC permit (something like that, IIRC) so demanding a "good and substantial reason" was ruled UNconstitutional...which makes way for the change from may-issue to shall-issue.

    And now in IL the right to choose to be armed past one's front door (to "bear" arms) is being recognized -- at least as "being implied" in the 2nd Amendment -- not just the right to have guns at home (the to "keep" part), but also to take them beyond the home (the to "bear" part)...like MOST OTHER AMERICANS can do in MOST states (if they CHOOSE to do so and are otherwise eligible).

    How can American citizens in one state -- AZ, NM and CO for 3 examples -- have more rights than an American citizen in ANOTHER state -- HI and the other very few "no carry allowed" states? How does THAT make any sense?

    What does it mean to be an American citizen if basic rights -- especially the Bill of Rights -- are arbitrarily applied, discriminatory (not apply to everyone) and not held in common by ALL Americans, regardless of their state of residence?

    That disparity should be illegal AND unconstitutional as well -- "equal protection under the law" and all that...how states have and continue to get away with not allowing ONE form of carry (OC or CC) is outrageous.
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 12-12-2012 at 01:29 AM.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    7th Circuit Court of Appeals holds that the Second Amendment applies outside the home

    That the right exists is reason enough to give a permit???

    NO!!!

    That the right exists is reason enough to let carriers be, without the need for a license.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  12. #12
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    I just want to take this chance to thank everyone involved in getting this done. This has always been a burden on my heart and even though I am not an Illinois resident, I have spent countless hours writing the Ill. legislatures to get it changed. Thanks again for all you have done!!
    The only terrorists I see nowadays are at the Capital.


    The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877
    eye95,

    I also agree there should be NO PERMIT for RIGHTS as rights shouldn't be sold (initial permit) or rented (permit renewals).

    ...but I didn't want the cops to confiscate my $$$$ Colt 1911 if I was "outed" -- even for a good shoot -- if I didn't have a permit to CC legally.

    So I "sold out" and got a CC permit (although it may have taken me 25 years to get one).

    Sorry...but sometimes, we just take what we can get.
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 12-12-2012 at 06:49 PM.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Oh, I have an AL license and will soon get my OH license.

    I am not saying not to get one. I am arguing against supporting laws that further entrench them. We need to be working to eliminate the need for them. In Ohio, that means getting the law that essentially requires a license to carry in your car removed or overturned. (The IL decision might actually help that.) That will make unlicensed OC almost completely doable. Almost. GFSZs and other no-carry areas still would need to be addressed.

  15. #15
    Regular Member KWP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    LU
    Posts
    16
    IMHO someone's rights ends where someone else's right begins.

    In case of gun laws, I guess, someone's right to keep and bear arms (including outside his/her home) ends where someone else's right to a safe environment begins. Bans or restrictions on OC and CC assume that legally armed people will behave recklessly and hurt other people.

    I understand why certain states require some initial training before handing out permits (though I prefer those who trust their citizens). And why you are considered as having forfeited your right when you do something very stupid or illegal. Anything more that that is, in my opinion, assuming people are guilty before proven innocent.

    How can you prove you need to carry a firearm before... it's too late?

    Let's stop giving DLs until one's able to proof that he/she missed an important appointment by trying to get there by bus or walking!

  16. #16
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    What!!??!!

    A measure of common sense emitting from the bench? What is this? We can't allow this to spread to other courts else all manner of social disorder, and even anarchy, would follow. Common sense, the bench?? Never the twain shall meet. But it appears they have.

    Oh Lord, what might follow were this to get out.
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 12-13-2012 at 07:50 AM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  17. #17
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    That the right exists is reason enough to give a permit???

    NO!!!

    That the right exists is reason enough to let carriers be, without the need for a license.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    That's right! I have completely given up on trying to understand how legislators and justices can interpret "shall not be infringed" into "can be infringed however we see fit." We need a solid ruling from the SCOTUS that makes it mandatory for states to recognize the Second Amendment inside and outside the home. Hopefully we still have time to get it!
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  18. #18
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by KWP View Post
    IMHO someone's rights ends where someone else's right begins.

    In case of gun laws, I guess, someone's right to keep and bear arms (including outside his/her home) ends where someone else's right to a safe environment begins. Bans or restrictions on OC and CC assume that legally armed people will behave recklessly and hurt other people.

    I understand why certain states require some initial training before handing out permits (though I prefer those who trust their citizens). And why you are considered as having forfeited your right when you do something very stupid or illegal. Anything more that that is, in my opinion, assuming people are guilty before proven innocent.

    How can you prove you need to carry a firearm before... it's too late?

    Let's stop giving DLs until one's able to proof that he/she missed an important appointment by trying to get there by bus or walking!
    I agree with most of what you have said, but our rights never end. The rights enumerated in the Constitution are not given to us by the document, they are simply protected by it. I am born with the rights that are enumerated in the Constitution as well as others that are not specifically protected by the Constitution (although most are under the Ninth Amendment). These rights are mine to exercise throughout life anywhere I see fit.

    The Second Amendment states that the right "shall NOT be INFRINGED," which is a phrase that has not been properly honored.

    Here in Kentucky my right to bear arms extends to every place that I may find myself in life, except Court of Justice courthouses and Detention Facilities (which both of these are not places one normally finds themselves unless trouble has come their way).

    Should my right to defend myself end when I enter a business open to the PUBLIC? Absolutely not. A business owner cannot prohibit people based on race, color or religion, why should they be able to ban a person because they are exercising other Constitutional rights?

    If a place isn't open to the public then of course they have the right to say who enters their residence and who doesn't, but this is not the case for public establishments -- atleast it shouldn't be. State and local governments definately should not restrict our right to carry in privately owned public establishments in any way (such as giving "no firearm" signs the force of law), because it is NOT an area they have any right to legislate.

    What state governments need to do is protect our rights like they are supposed to, and pass legislation that makes it clear a business owner cannot be sued or held liable for the actions of an armed customer, or any other customer for that matter. The reason we have government is to protect our rights, but the government has apparently forget this.

    I certainly believe in private property rights, but when you open your doors to the public they should not be prohibited from enjoying their Constitutional rights while in your establishment.

    And you are right when you say we ALL have a right to a safe environment. And I agree that the only way to ensure that safety is to be able to protect ourselves; just because someone believes people shouldn't be able to carry firearms outside of their home makes no difference. This is a constitutional republic and not a democracy, therefore my Second Amendment rights trump what people think, even if it is the greatest majority. My right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness also trumps what people think, and in order for me to preserve my right to life I must be able to defend that life at all times.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  19. #19
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    What!!??!!

    A measure of common sense emitting from the bench? What is this? We can't allow this to spread to other courts else all manner of social disorder, and even anarchy, would follow. Common sense, the bench?? Never the twain shall meet. But it appears they have.

    Oh Lord, what might follow were this to get out.
    Well......December 21st 2012 is rapidly approaching.

    This court decision is just the beginning of the end of life on this earth as all liberals know it or wish it to be.

    http://www.december212012.com/
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  20. #20
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    <snip>

    What state governments need to do is protect our rights like they are supposed to, and pass legislation that makes it clear a business owner cannot be sued or held liable for the actions of an armed customer, or any other customer for that matter. The reason we have government is to protect our rights, but the government has apparently forget this.

    <snip>
    I reject the premise. Though the reality is what it is.

    There should be no law one way or the other. No law for the business owner and now law against the business owner. Twelve good men and true must be the only and final arbiter of any dispute between citizens in a civil court. Trespass must be a civil violation and not a criminal violation. The failure to obey or resist LE when a citizen is trespassed is a additional criminal charge against the trespassor. Merely standing on your property, doing no physical harm to property or persons should not be made a criminal offense.

    Criminal violations are a different matter and it is the responsibility of our elected reps to undo the damage they have done to our society via a unending string of laws that criminalize virtually every act of every citizen.

    It must not be made criminal to carry any weapon, of any type, from a philosophical standpoint. The unlawful use of a weapon must be the only criteria for the existence of weapons laws. In other words, using a weapon is an additional and aggravating crime. Murder is murder whether by hand or tool. The tool aggravates the crime of murder.

    http://www.harveysilverglate.com/Boo...oniesaDay.aspx

    Note: The provided link is not a endorsement of the product or the originator of the product. It is provided for illustration purposes only.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  21. #21
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    That the right exists is reason enough to give a permit???

    NO!!!

    That the right exists is reason enough to let carriers be, without the need for a license.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Wow, another time we've agreed on something.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  22. #22
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    That's right! I have completely given up on trying to understand how legislators and justices can interpret "shall not be infringed" into "can be infringed however we see fit." We need a solid ruling from the SCOTUS that makes it mandatory for states to recognize the Second Amendment inside and outside the home. Hopefully we still have time to get it!
    {Voice="annoying libtard"} So you think that everyone should be able to own tanks, planes, bombs, ships, rocket launchers, missiles, machine guns, etc? Shall not be infringed is just there because the founding fathers could never see into the future. Of course there are reasonable limits on the right to keep and bear arms otherwise people would be blowing each other up with grenades and tanks it would be messy and violent.{/voice}

    It's because they went to a public school and never learned English.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  23. #23
    Regular Member CharleyMarbles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Clio, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    {Voice="annoying libtard"} So you think that everyone should be able to own tanks, planes, bombs, ships, rocket launchers, missiles, machine guns, etc? Shall not be infringed is just there because the founding fathers could never see into the future. Of course there are reasonable limits on the right to keep and bear arms otherwise people would be blowing each other up with grenades and tanks it would be messy and violent.{/voice}

    It's because they went to a public school and never learned English.
    No shall not be infringed is there so we wouldn't find ourselves trying to defend ourselves against modern arms with MUSKETS ! ! ! ! The Founding Fathers left it open ON PURPOSE !!! I am Amazed at the unimaginable insight and forethought those Great men had. There are NO reasonable restrictions any one can put on a RIGHT HANDED DOWN FROM THE MAKER HIMSELF ???? WHO really thinks they have the moral authority to decide WHO get's GOD'S blessing and who doesn't????
    America Home of the Free BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE ! ! ! !

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    7th Circuit Court of Appeals holds that the Second Amendment applies outside the home

    I am not going to go into it again; I already have on a few occasions, but I have already shown that the arms being protected in the 2A are the typical arms that one would use for personal defense or or other civilian uses, but could be used in a pinch as a personal military weapon. In today's world, that would include handguns, rifles, shotguns, knives, and the like. It would not include crew-served weapons, nukes, and the like.

    I have deliberately not brought automatic firearms into the analysis.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  25. #25
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by CharleyMarbles View Post
    No shall not be infringed is there so we wouldn't find ourselves trying to defend ourselves against modern arms with MUSKETS ! ! ! ! The Founding Fathers left it open ON PURPOSE !!! I am Amazed at the unimaginable insight and forethought those Great men had. There are NO reasonable restrictions any one can put on a RIGHT HANDED DOWN FROM THE MAKER HIMSELF ???? WHO really thinks they have the moral authority to decide WHO get's GOD'S blessing and who doesn't????
    I do, I'm better than God. I didn't create Satan, nor have I allowed my greatest enemy to torture my greatest ally just to win a bet.

    Don't use God, please. Not everyone believes in God and those that don't can easily dismiss any pro-rights argument that uses God just as I have demonstrated above.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •