SAF Wins Huge Victory in Illinois for Carry Rights

[mountainpass]

http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=415

The Second Amendment Foundation has won a huge victory for the right to bear arms outside the home, with a ruling in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that declares the right to self-defense is “broader than the right to have a gun in one’s home.”

The case of Moore v. Madigan, with Judge Richards Posner writing for the majority, gives the Illinois legislature 180 days to "craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment…on the carrying of guns in public.”

 

[mountainpass]

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/NY0XMGZY.pdf

 

[Zombie Ninja]

http://www.bnd.com/2012/12/11/2424382/federal-appeals-court-orders-state.html

Your link is not working but I did just read about this here. NY needs this!

 

[GreenPanther]

Huge step in the right direction.

 

[timbgtm]

WOW,never thought the day would come.

 

[dep411]

Me either, but I betcha it will be the most expensive ccw permit ever with the strictest rules to follow!!!

 

[mountainpass]

http://www.bnd.com/2012/12/11/2424382/federal-appeals-court-orders-state.html

Your link is not working but I did just read about this here. NY needs this!

Try this: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/NY0XMGZY.pdf

 

[tmoore912]

The 7th Circuit wrote:

The right to “bear” as distinct from the right to “keep” arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of “bearing”
arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.

And one doesn’t have to be a historian to realize that a right to keep and bear arms for personal self-defense in the eighteenth century could not rationally have been limited to the home.

 

[tmoore912]

The court also wrote:

Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim, while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter. That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald. It is not a property right—a right to kill a house guest who in a fit of aesthetic fury tries to slash your copy of Norman Rockwell’s painting Santa with Elves. That is not self-defense, and this case like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense.

 

[tmoore912]

Try this: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/NY0XMGZY.pdf

They keep changing the link to the opinion: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/NY12808O.pdf