Superlite27
Regular Member
I am not an attorney, therefore have a very limited grasp of "legalese". I would appreciate input regarding a question I have about SAF's recent lawsuit on behalf of Michael Moore concerning carry in the state of Illinois from someone with a clearer understanding of legal jargon.
I reviewed the case docket here: http://ia600603.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.docket.html and from what I can tell, the judge, Kachalski, issued a ruling: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.33.1.pdf concerning a request for dismissal from Madigan (et. al) based upon findings from a similar case in New Jersey. (Question #1: Am I on track with this, or completely screwed up?)
In this link, from what I can tell, the judge concurred with the New Jersey findings that the SCOTUS ruling on Heller determined that infringements on firearm posession within the home were unconstitutional, but carry beyond that point was left up to the states, therefore: Restrictions on the carry of firearms outside the home were acceptable and not an infringement on Constitutional rights. (Question #2: Am I still following along correctly, or am I misunderstanding things?)
My fundamental question (regarding these findings based on my vague understanding of them): At absolutely NO POINT within the Constitution does it mention LOCATION. The Second Amendment simply states "..shall not be infringed.". Nowhere does it state any location where the infringement would be acceptable. Therefore, the ruling of "within the home" is simply arbitrary.
How does the state interject location (within the home vs. outside the home) into the argument? Is there any legal means to determine the state's basis for determination? (Asked simply: How does the state justify that the right to expect reasonable means to provide for your own protection ends at your doorstep when, at no point whatsoever is any limit stated in the document they use to determine this?) The state has determined that the reasonable protection of your life resides on a line at your doorstep. HOW does it reach this conclusion?
Is there any legal way to ask the court this? Is this a valid argument that would provide any help in forwarding the legal argument for carry?
I reviewed the case docket here: http://ia600603.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.docket.html and from what I can tell, the judge, Kachalski, issued a ruling: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.33.1.pdf concerning a request for dismissal from Madigan (et. al) based upon findings from a similar case in New Jersey. (Question #1: Am I on track with this, or completely screwed up?)
In this link, from what I can tell, the judge concurred with the New Jersey findings that the SCOTUS ruling on Heller determined that infringements on firearm posession within the home were unconstitutional, but carry beyond that point was left up to the states, therefore: Restrictions on the carry of firearms outside the home were acceptable and not an infringement on Constitutional rights. (Question #2: Am I still following along correctly, or am I misunderstanding things?)
My fundamental question (regarding these findings based on my vague understanding of them): At absolutely NO POINT within the Constitution does it mention LOCATION. The Second Amendment simply states "..shall not be infringed.". Nowhere does it state any location where the infringement would be acceptable. Therefore, the ruling of "within the home" is simply arbitrary.
How does the state interject location (within the home vs. outside the home) into the argument? Is there any legal means to determine the state's basis for determination? (Asked simply: How does the state justify that the right to expect reasonable means to provide for your own protection ends at your doorstep when, at no point whatsoever is any limit stated in the document they use to determine this?) The state has determined that the reasonable protection of your life resides on a line at your doorstep. HOW does it reach this conclusion?
Is there any legal way to ask the court this? Is this a valid argument that would provide any help in forwarding the legal argument for carry?