PDA

View Full Version : 7th Circuit strikes down Illinois ban on concealed carry



CitizenBBN
12-11-2012, 04:26 PM
Oh, our fearless leader won't be happy about this one. I can smell Feinstein's hair on fire from here:



Federal CourtStrikes down Illinois' total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outsidethe home or business
Fairfax,Va. – The UnitedStates Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled today that Illinois'total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home or business isunconstitutional. The case involves lead plaintiff Mary Shepard, an Illinoisresident and a trained gun owner, who is licensed to carry a concealed handgunin both Utah and Florida. The National Rifle Association is funding this case.The Illinois State Rifle Association is a co-plaintiff in this case.

“Today’sruling is a victory for all law abiding citizens in Illinois and gun ownersthroughout the country,” said Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of NRA.“The court recognized that the text and history of the Second Amendmentguarantee individuals the right to carry firearms outside the home forself-defense and other lawful purposes. In light of this ruling, Mary Shepardand the people of Illinois will finally be able to exercise their SecondAmendment rights.”

OnSeptember 28, 2009, while working as the treasurer of her church, Ms. Shepardand an 83-year-old co-worker were viciously attacked and beaten by asix-foot-three-inch, 245 pound man with a violent past and a criminal record.Ms. Shepard and her co-worker were lucky to survive, as each of them sufferedmajor injuries to the head, neck and upper body. Ms. Shepard's injuriesrequired extensive surgeries and she continues physical therapy to this dayattempting to recover from her injuries.

Intoday’s decision, Judge Richard Posner ruled that Illinois’ ban on carriage isunconstitutional. The Judge went on to say, “One doesn’t have to be a historianto realize that a right to keep and bear arms for personal self-defense in theeighteenth century could not rationally have been limited to the home. . . .Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a gooddeal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk than in his apartment on the 35th floor.”

"Today'sruling is a major victory for law-abiding Illinoisans—and for everyone whounderstands that the Second Amendment protects the right both to keep arms, andto bear arms," added Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA's Institutefor Legislative Action. "This ruling makes clear that Illinois cannot denylaw-abiding residents the right to carry a firearm for self-defense outside thehome. This is a step in the right direction for all gun owners. We know itprobably won’t be the end of this case, and we’re ready to keep fighting untilthe courts fully protect the entire Second Amendment."
Viewthe entire ruling here (http://www.nramedia.org/t/945246/67488611/19504/0/).

CitizenBBN
12-11-2012, 04:31 PM
Wanted to put the release in its own post.

This is a huge victory. Didn't have to go to SCOTUS to get the ruling so there are some other good judges out there. It overturns a LONG ban by Illinois that was supported strongly by Obama.

People in Illinois have a shot at defending themselves, and the Left in Chicago are going to be out of their skins. Ought to be interesting.

CitizenBBN
12-11-2012, 06:11 PM
Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's majority opinion that the state "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."

He continued: "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."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/11/federal-court-strikes-down-illinois-ban-on-carrying-concealed-weapons/#ixzz2En7zUf52



Interesting the court ruled Illinois could provide no basis in public safety for their complete ban. It said the data was inconclusive and may promote self-defense and that wasn't enough to of a public safety argument since it may in fact not be in the public safety.

Their Governor wants to ban all semi-automatic weapons. Gee where did I hear that before? OH I know, from a certain illinois state senator's voting survey. Banning semi auto guns is basically a ban on guns. Don't think he's quite with the flow of this ruling. lol.

PedroDaGr8
12-11-2012, 07:23 PM
Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's majority opinion that the state "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."

He continued: "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."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/11/federal-court-strikes-down-illinois-ban-on-carrying-concealed-weapons/#ixzz2En7zUf52



Interesting the court ruled Illinois could provide no basis in public safety for their complete ban. It said the data was inconclusive and may promote self-defense and that wasn't enough to of a public safety argument since it may in fact not be in the public safety.

Their Governor wants to ban all semi-automatic weapons. Gee where did I hear that before? OH I know, from a certain illinois state senator's voting survey. Banning semi auto guns is basically a ban on guns. Don't think he's quite with the flow of this ruling. lol.


Judge Posner gets around. He is an AMAZINGLY intelligent judge. He's overseen several tech lawsuits and has shown a rather high level of lucidity in his thinking process.

jazyd
12-11-2012, 09:03 PM
good day, bad day for gun owners. bad day in Portland, we won't hear the end of that.

CitizenBBN
12-11-2012, 09:36 PM
I wait to inevitably hear about his mental issues that people knew about but did nothing and how he wasn't a conceal carry holder and now no current law being proposed would have done anything to stop him. It wont' be reported that way but that's what will come out if it's true to the other 99% of cases.

Wonder if the mall was a "gun free zone".

dan_bgblue
12-11-2012, 09:58 PM
CBBN did you ever read "Beyond this Horizon" by Heinlein?

DanISSELisdaman
12-11-2012, 11:31 PM
Wanted to put the release in its own post.

This is a huge victory. Didn't have to go to SCOTUS to get the ruling so there are some other good judges out there. It overturns a LONG ban by Illinois that was supported strongly by Obama.

People in Illinois have a shot at defending themselves, and the Left in Chicago are going to be out of their skins. Ought to be interesting.

It's a good thing that it didn't go to the Supreme Court IMO. Cit.

Darrell KSR
12-11-2012, 11:36 PM
Judge Posner gets around. He is an AMAZINGLY intelligent judge. He's overseen several tech lawsuits and has shown a rather high level of lucidity in his thinking process.

Posner is very well-respected.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

CitizenBBN
12-11-2012, 11:38 PM
CBBN did you ever read "Beyond this Horizon" by Heinlein?

An armed society is a polite society.

Never actually read it. Wanted to in high school when I read a lot of sci fi but never got to that one.

The fundamental problem is some people cannot separate the issue of gun violence from law abiding citizens carrying guns. We can debate whether there should be guns at all, but that's separate from the question of allowing responsible people from carrying a gun for self defense in a world where guns exist.

They see "armed people" as all one group, criminals and responsible citizens all the same.

They also fall into one of the most basic failings of liberalism: the idea that passing a law makes something so. Passing a law against gun carry is like passing a speed limit but not allowing police to patrol the roads or pull over speeders. It would make the law all but useless. You can only be cited for speeding if you're in an accident and were speeding. Maybe everyone doesn't go 120 (I would) but speeding would be rampant.

since you can't see the gun and we won't strip search everyone coming and going at random the law has no a priori enforcement mechanism. You are highly unlikely to have the law enforced against you unless you use the gun. The law against carry is meaningless to anyone who doesn't care about the law.

So they think if they don't let people carry then no one will have a gun. Illinois has proven just the opposite: only law abiding people obey the rule and your gun violence rate becomes the highest in the nation.

So concealed carry is a wholly separate issue from these lunatics shooting people and even from the issue of gun bans. They can't understand it b/c they won't work through it. They're too busy losing their minds.

I really am curious to see if it comes out this was a gun free zone. There is now quite a streak of them in these shootings. Va Tech, Columbine, Aurora, all in areas with specific laws against carrying guns.

suncat05
12-12-2012, 10:19 AM
Since it happened in Portland, Oregon and said state is one of those bastions of liberal so-called "utopias", I am pretty sure the incident occurred in a so-called "gun free zone".
Yet another example of liberal bias against something that they have no working knowledge of, as usual.

CGWildcat
12-12-2012, 12:30 PM
Good ruling. NOW, how do we make it happen here in California???? On a side note: I FINALLY picked up a 357 sig sauer and Remington 30.06 pump action yesterday! They are in my posession CBBN!

CitizenBBN
12-12-2012, 03:34 PM
What did Illinois did was to try to not compromise. They almost passed some kind of carry last year but it was their absolute ban that gave the 7th more than enough grounds.

Cali has one, it's just very restrictive. Unfortunately Cali's in the 9th, the most liberal district, so I imagine as long as they have something it may survive. The same arguments would apply to Cali's b/c it's all but meaningless since it's so hard to get one, but Illinois' outright ban got them.

With the SCOTUS ruling people in Chicago can own handguns and now conceal carry allowed the Illinois politicians will have a hard time keeping the crime rate up.

CitizenBBN
12-12-2012, 03:35 PM
I FINALLY picked up a 357 sig sauer and Remington 30.06 pump action yesterday! They are in my posession CBBN!

Woooo!! It was an adventure for you, but most awesome. :rockon:

CitizenBBN
12-12-2012, 05:35 PM
Not 100% sure, but gun site reports are that this was a gun free zone, as are all properties owned by this company. In fact there were discussions of this exact mall as having a "no guns, legal or illegal" in 2005 including reports of people being stopped for suspicion of carrying concealed.

They need to change those "no guns allowed" signs to "ideal for shooting sprees" signs.

Also, reports of "bulletproof vest" came from one witness who had no clue what he was wearing. It seems to have been a normal "tactical" gun vest but not armored.

He used an AR-15 as well which they say jammed at one point.