May Issue and the recent IL case


PDA






Edster12
February 6, 2014, 11:20 AM
So I was driving the other day and thinking, I do too much of both, how will the recent IL Supreme court decision effect May Issue States.

I found this in some research "both decisions contain language strongly suggesting if not outright confirming that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home."

Would this make May Issue unconstitutional also??

If you enjoyed reading about "May Issue and the recent IL case" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ilbob
February 6, 2014, 12:05 PM
So I was driving the other day and thinking, I do too much of both, how will the recent IL Supreme court decision effect May Issue States.

I found this in some research "both decisions contain language strongly suggesting if not outright confirming that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home."

Would this make May Issue unconstitutional also??
An IL Supreme Court decision is unlikely to affect other states all that much.

MagnumDweeb
February 6, 2014, 01:14 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-does-mean-bear-guns-110205014.html --- try this link to get some idea of what is coming next.

With Heller and McDonald we've established the undeniable right to "keep" arms but now we have to litigate whether or not we have the right to "bear" arms and what the term bear means, as if that makes any sense.

It looks like in Texas the NRA is trying to get a ruling on what "bear" means in respect to our rights and asserts that there is no such thing as "surplus" language in the Constitution so the word bear has to mean something. So then it becomes a question of whether or not bear means to have in public or not.

I think May Issue could survive but only in a reduced sense meaning there would have to be a review process where one could get their rights. What this means exactly I don't know. I fear it might mean the old New York City comment $5,000 will get you a concealed weapon's permit kind of bit (once you pay it to a lawyer).

Trent
February 6, 2014, 02:43 PM
Unless there's been another case I haven't heard of, Illinois' court ruling which got us Shall Issue as a Federal 7th Circuit court decision, not a Supreme Court decision.

It only affects Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

There is a contradictory 2nd Circuit decision that covers New York, affirming the state's right to impose limitations on the carrying of firearms; so the two circuits are in contradiction with one another. While this MAY lead to a supreme court grant of cert at some point on another case, it's unlikely; Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan elected NOT to pursue a Federal Supreme Court hearing on the issue. (She probably received some pressure from New York on that, although it's just my own speculation).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Seventh_Circuit

MErl
February 6, 2014, 02:50 PM
possibly pertinent http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/02/gun-rights-cases-on-the-schedule/#more-204923

The petition in the federal case is a sweeping claim that lower federal courts have been engaging in “massive resistance” to the Court’s landmark decisions on Second Amendment rights. As one example of that resistance, the petition contends that lower courts are stubbornly resisting efforts to view the personal right to have a gun as something so important that it must extend outside the home as well as within.

The petition makes that point in urging the Court to make it clear to lower courts that its 2008 decision recognized a fundamental right, one that can be curbed only for the most compelling government reasons. The government has countered that the beyond-the-home question is not even at issue in that case, because the federal law involved is a narrowly focused issue on minors’ desire to buy guns from licensed federal dealers.

Shall see if they'll hear em.

Edster12
February 6, 2014, 02:59 PM
I guess what my point/observation, is that if the 2nd Amendment extends beyond the home, then States that are May Issue are hindering this and one would naturally think that May Issue would be considered unconstitutional.

Trent
February 6, 2014, 03:49 PM
I agree with you Edster; but until the Supreme Court renders a verdict one way or the other, the federal Circuit courts remain the case-law of the land.

RetiredUSNChief
February 6, 2014, 04:37 PM
With respect to the IL SC decision, or ANY state's SC decision on any subject, about the only impact on another state would be from propaganda spread by people who will cite the decisions of one court over another's for comparison and debate.

Sort of a "Look what this state did! Why can't we do that as well? (or We better take action to prevent that from happening here!)"

Politicians might make use of it in such a fashion for campaigning purposes.

However, there is no legal impact from one state to the next on any given issue based directly on another state's SC decision.

Trent
February 6, 2014, 06:55 PM
Again, it wasn't an IL supreme court decision. It was a federal court decision in the 7th circuit, in Shepard vs. Madigan that won the day in IL.

It took this to get the process started:

http://i.imgur.com/7VP9JSV.jpg

The Federal Court decided that Mary Shepard deserved the right to defend herself outside her home after she was savagely beaten working as a volunteer in her church.

Tell a similar story in other Federal circuits.

Get a big group to back you like the second amendment foundation.

Fight for years.

And maybe win.

If you enjoyed reading about "May Issue and the recent IL case" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!