• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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 Court of Appeals holds that the Second Amendment applies outside the home

John Pierce

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
1,776
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
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
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...
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
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. :)

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!
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
758
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
^^^^
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:

nobama

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
756
Location
, ,
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.
 

Lasjayhawk

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2012
Messages
289
Location
Las Vegas
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:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,847
Location
El Paso, TX
"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:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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>
 

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,246
Location
Iowa, USA
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!!
 

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,847
Location
El Paso, TX
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:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

KWP

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
16
Location
LU
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!
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,831
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
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:

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
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!
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,942
Location
White Oak Plantation
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 21[SUP]st[/SUP] 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/
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,942
Location
White Oak Plantation
<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/Books/ThreeFeloniesaDay.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.
 
Top