-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
7th Circuit affirms dismissal of open carry civil rights claim (Jesus Gonzalez)
- Thread starter paul@paul-fisher.com
- Start date
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
So.... the basic point of this is that most of the lawsuit is moot because of the 2 SCOTUS decision and then the passage of Act 35. The ruling states that before those occurences, officers could believe that openly carrying a firearm in Menards was disorderly. Jesus getting getting convicted of a felony made the relief sought moot as well.
Viper
Regular Member
Relatively new law.....qualified immunity....
They should know the current laws inside and out IMHO.
They should know the current laws inside and out IMHO.
H
Herr Heckler Koch
Guest
From the decision, "At the time of the arrests, the state constitutional right to bear arms was relatively new, ..."
Bwahahaha! What weasel-words, "relatively new"! Relative to what, today? Article I Section 25 dates from November 1998, that's 4,841 days and "relatively new" compared to what, the years of Our Lord? That's only 734502 days.
From the decision, "The delayed return of Gonzalez’s handguns was not a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment."
Bwahahaha! What weasel-words, "relatively new"! Relative to what, today? Article I Section 25 dates from November 1998, that's 4,841 days and "relatively new" compared to what, the years of Our Lord? That's only 734502 days.
From the decision, "The delayed return of Gonzalez’s handguns was not a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment."
Last edited:
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]The court punted on where the limits of right to bear arms reside but did not attempt to further an "in the home" limitation. The decision did no harm to the constitutional argument in favor of OC as the protected core of the right to bear arms. There is actually some useful dicta here if properly used.[/FONT]
H
Herr Heckler Koch
Guest
A slightly different version from the MJS
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/...gun-arrests-thrown-out-5g41vs6-138619934.html
Original
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/138580564.html?page=1
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/...gun-arrests-thrown-out-5g41vs6-138619934.html
Original
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/138580564.html?page=1
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
I like how the court ignored a right discussed in Union Pacific Rail Co vs Botsford and Terry v Ohio.
Let me back up a step. Here in Gonzalez, the 7th Circuit goes to a lot of trouble to analyze the wrong the thing, saying OC was not a clearly established right, thus the thugs-with-badges had qualified imboobity.
However, Gonzalez did have a clearly established right that was completely trampled:
No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford.
Clear and unquestionable authority of law. In excusing their conduct, the court carefully shows the cops had reason to be confused and uncertain about the law on OC. Well, isn't that just grand. The court practically comes right out and says the law on OC was not clear and unquestionable. Yet, there is a right to be free from all restraint and interference unless there is clear and unquestionable authority of law.
So much for courts protecting rights. Not that there is anything new about it when they don't.
But, I suppose its not all the court's fault. They only answer the question before them. So, many thanks to Gonzalez'es lawyers for not including the point in their arguments. </sarcasm>
Let me back up a step. Here in Gonzalez, the 7th Circuit goes to a lot of trouble to analyze the wrong the thing, saying OC was not a clearly established right, thus the thugs-with-badges had qualified imboobity.
However, Gonzalez did have a clearly established right that was completely trampled:
No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford.
Clear and unquestionable authority of law. In excusing their conduct, the court carefully shows the cops had reason to be confused and uncertain about the law on OC. Well, isn't that just grand. The court practically comes right out and says the law on OC was not clear and unquestionable. Yet, there is a right to be free from all restraint and interference unless there is clear and unquestionable authority of law.
So much for courts protecting rights. Not that there is anything new about it when they don't.
But, I suppose its not all the court's fault. They only answer the question before them. So, many thanks to Gonzalez'es lawyers for not including the point in their arguments. </sarcasm>
Last edited:
What makes you think I didn't?
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
Uh Oh Chongo!