Heller expanded: right to carry outside the home

[Stegall Law Firm]

A federal circuit court today essentially expanded Heller to include right to carry outside the home (which Heller never addressed), and struck down an Illinois law prohibiting carrying firearms.  The Illinois lawyer who sent this to me described it as "earth shattering." 

 

Here is the opinion: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/NY0PHCVE.pdf

[gregintenn]

Can this be overturned, and could you please summerize the opinion for us mere mortals? Could this mean the end of carry permits?

[JReedEsq]

Can this be overturned, and could you please summerize the opinion for us mere mortals? Could this mean the end of carry permits?

 

 

I seriously doubt it.  The Heller opinion is pretty clear about the state's having the authority to regulate firearms and this opinion (p. 16) suggests that it is reasonable to assume that states can regulate the carrying of arms.  I'll read this thing more closely when I'm not so busy but I find it interesting they use Massad Ayoob as a source.  

[Guest cardcutter]

Wow! I have to bet that this will be apealed to the supremes. i don't think the gun grabber states will let it go at this.

[peejman]

Can this be overturned, and could you please summerize the opinion for us mere mortals? Could this mean the end of carry permits?

 

Yes, a summary in English (rather than legalese) would be most appreciated. 

[DaveTN]

This is "earth shattering" because its coming from the 7th.

The Illinois legislature is already considering carry laws; this could help it along.

I don't have time to read all 47 pages right now, but it looks promising for Illinois and possibly a case to go to the SCOTUS.

[RobertNashville]

Looking at the plaintiff's I see MICHAEL MOORE and MARY E. SHEPARD. I don't know and couldn't fine anything about Ms Shepard but it this is the well know super-liberal Michael Moore then I guess he or other backers could take this to the Supreme Court.  However, given the cost of doing so and the present make-up of the court I'm not sure that would be money well spent.

 

Perhaps they'll do so hoping Mr. Obummer has had a chance to stack the court with more gun-lovers like Sotomayor and Kagan. ;)

[Chucktshoes]

Looking at the plaintiff's I see MICHAEL MOORE and MARY E. SHEPARD. I don't know and couldn't fine anything about Ms Shepard but it this is the well know super-liberal Michael Moore then I guess he or other backers could take this to the Supreme Court. However, given the cost of doing so and the present make-up of the court I'm not sure that would be money well spent.

Perhaps they'll do so hoping Mr. Obummer has had a chance to stack the court with more gun-lovers like Sotomayor and Kagan. ;)

I think getting the SCOTUS to hear this case sooner rather than later is highly advisable. God forbid they take up the case after Obama gets to change the 5/4 swing and they then use this case to overturn Heller. Edited December 11, 2012 by Chucktshoes

[mcurrier]

Federal court strikes down Illinois ban on carrying concealed weapons

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/11/federal-court-strikes-down-illinois-ban-on-carrying-concealed-weapons/?test=latestnews#ixzz2ElteahLi

[mcurrier]

"A federal appeals court has struck down a ban on carrying concealed weapons in Illinois -- the only state where carrying concealed weapons is entirely illegal. 

 

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals announced Tuesday that state lawmakers have 180 days to write a new law that legalizes concealed carry. "

 

 

"The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by former corrections officer Michael Moore of Champaign, farmer Charles Hooks of Percy in southeastern Illinois and the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation."

[RobertNashville]

Now I see said the blind man...I had it turned around.

 

I suspect Illinois will take it to SCOTUS then although I am sure they would rather not have this particular make-up of the court hear it. Of course, cases generally take a long while to get there so who knows what the court will look like when/if it does

[mcurrier]

Big win for gun-rights groups: Federal appeals court tosses state ban on carrying concealed weapons

 

http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/2012/12/big_win_for_gun-rights_groups_federal_appeals_court_tosses_state_ban_on_carrying_concealed_weapons.html

 

Article includes an online poll.

[monkeylizard]

Assuming SCOTUS upholds the decision, IL just has to pass a law allowing carry, but make the requirements so ridiculous that nobody will do it. Right?

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

Assuming SCOTUS upholds the decision, IL just has to pass a law allowing carry, but make the requirements so ridiculous that nobody will do it. Right?

This, I'm sure the State of Illinois will make the process as difficult as possible.

[JayC]

This is "earth shattering" because its coming from the 7th.

The Illinois legislature is already considering carry laws; this could help it along.

I don't have time to read all 47 pages right now, but it looks promising for Illinois and possibly a case to go to the SCOTUS.

 

Hmm so much for 'states rights' if the 7th is ordering this...  This is the same court 4 years ago that said the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to the states.  

 

If this ruling were to stand it's a huge deal:

 

 

Nor can we ignore the implication of the analysis that the constitutional right of armed selfdefense is broader than the right to have a gun in one’s home. The first sentence of the  McDonald opinion states  that “two years  ago, in  District of Columbia v. Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense,”

 

So much for the argument that carry would be left up to the states....  At this point SCOTUS will have to take up the issue of carrying of arms, and if the 7th's is ruling this way it would be very unlikely that SCOTUS would not claim there is a right to bear arms outside th home.

 

If it stands this will impact other states as well including TN, since the cost of our permit is way too high for a 'right'.

[JayC]

Assuming SCOTUS upholds the decision, IL just has to pass a law allowing carry, but make the requirements so ridiculous that nobody will do it. Right?

I'm sure that will be the first game plan, but follow on cases will start to peel back more and more of the red tape.  They're going to have to craft new legislation with an eye towards strict scrutiny it would appear if this ruling stands.

[gregintenn]

I seriously doubt it.  The Heller opinion is pretty clear about the state's having the authority to regulate firearms and this opinion (p. 16) suggests that it is reasonable to assume that states can regulate the carrying of arms.  I'll read this thing more closely when I'm not so busy but I find it interesting they use Massad Ayoob as a source.  

 

Thanks for attempting to explain. I guess I'm thickheaded, but it would seem this ruling is in opposition or the states having authority to regulate firearms. It seems to me that Illinois was already "regulating firearms".

[GKar]

The opinion actually addresses the idea of New York-style laws versus those in more gun friendly states, and appears to leave the door open for both to exist.  My 50,000 foot takeaway read: the 7th is saying that an outright ban precludes ANY opportunity for a citizen to carry a gun for self defense, and thus they deem such a ban to be unconstitutional.  The degree to which states regulate firearm possession outside the home, however, is left to the states as long as it stays short of an outright ban.

Edited December 11, 2012 by GKar

[DaveTN]

Hmm so much for 'states rights' if the 7th is ordering this...  This is the same court 4 years ago that said the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to the states.  
 
If this ruling were to stand it's a huge deal:
 
So much for the argument that carry would be left up to the states....  At this point SCOTUS will have to take up the issue of carrying of arms, and if the 7th's is ruling this way it would be very unlikely that SCOTUS would not claim there is a right to bear arms outside th home.
 
If it stands this will impact other states as well including TN, since the cost of our permit is way too high for a 'right'.

I don’t believe it will ever happen. As I said this is a good thing for the people of Illinois that want the ability to carry, but I don’t think Illinois, New York , California, or even Tennessee are going to let the Feds drive it down their throat. The SCOTUS will either not hear this case, or will rule the state has the right to control carry outside the home. They have no other choice, they aren’t going to make a ruling that can’t be enforced; and this couldn’t be enforced.

But hey…. I could be wrong.

[JayC]

The opinion actually addresses the idea of New York-style laws versus those in more gun friendly states, and appears to leave the door open for both to exist.  My 50,000 foot takeaway read: the 7th is saying that an outright ban precludes ANY opportunity for a citizen to carry a gun for self defense, and thus they deem such a ban to be unconstitutional.  The degree to which states regulate firearm possession outside the home, however, is left to the states as long as it stays short of an outright ban.

 

That is not my take on it at all...  It disagreed with the opinion from the New York court, and laid out the grounds for a more strict scrutiny under the 2nd amendment.  But they said they don't have to address that since it's clear the current law is unconstitutional.

[JayC]

I don’t believe it will ever happen. As I said this is a good thing for the people of Illinois that want the ability to carry, but I don’t think Illinois, New York , California, or even Tennessee are going to let the Feds drive it down their throat. The SCOTUS will either not hear this case, or will rule the state has the right to control carry outside the home. They have no other choice, they aren’t going to make a ruling that can’t be enforced; and this couldn’t be enforced.

But hey…. I could be wrong.

 

I've been saying you're wrong on this subject for 3 years now, and I think this ruling tends to prove it...  You're talking about the same court that stated 4 years ago there was not right to own a firearm let alone carry one outside your house.

 

While Heller and McDonald fell way short IMHO, it's clear the ground work has been laid to force the issue of carry... SCOTUS will now be forced to take this issue up in their next term since you have conflicting case law... and they will rule that carry outside the home is a right.

 

While it's likely that permitting will survive, it's unlikely that states will allowed to treat carry as a privileged and not a right, even TN.  I'll give perfect example, permits being revoked because of payment issues with child support, are likely to be ruled unconstitutional in TN.  Since the state will not be able to meet the 'strict scrutiny standard' that lack of child support payment removes a natural right.

 

Will states like IL and NY continue to play games and try to get around court ruling, sure...  but they are loosing all of the follow on cases.

 

This is a major victory if some a left leaning court finds there is a constitutional right to bear arms outside the home, and places the burden for denying that right on the state not the law abiding citizen.

[daddyo]

This, I'm sure the State of Illinois will make the process as difficult as possible.

Not if they write and pass a shall-issue carry law.

[Oh Shoot]

Not if they write and pass a shall-issue carry law.

 

Yeah, one of my first thoughts, that depending on ruling, all "may issue" states might have to go to "shall issue".  The degree of onerous regulations to do it though is indeed another matter, even if that comes about.

 

- OS

[RobertNashville]

Yeah, one of my first thoughts, that depending on ruling, all "may issue" states might have to go to "shall issue".  The degree of onerous regulations to do it though is indeed another matter, even if that comes about.

 

- OS

And will probably take more lawsuits to challenge ridiculous regulations that only serve to thwart the 2A...the laws on the books today didn't likely land there all at once and getting rid of them isn't likely going to happen with one ruling either.

Edited December 12, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest sventvkg]

Assuming SCOTUS upholds the decision, IL just has to pass a law allowing carry, but make the requirements so ridiculous that nobody will do it. Right?

 

Yes and no way does the SCOUTUS take this case. It's already been addressed recently and I believe they will cede to the 7th's decision,. Remember gang, the SC doesn't take every cause that's appealed to it.