Illinois Challenges Concealed Carry Decision
- Thread starter Trent
- Start date
- Status
Read the dissenting opinion.
Can someone with an understanding of the issue break this down:
"(e) Finally, the panel opinion, Heller, and McDonald do not prevent Illinois from imposing reasonable limits on which arms may be carried in public. See Heller, 554 U.S. at 627. We can be reasonably confident that the Second Amendment rights are not limited to arms known to the Framers of the amendment, but also confident that the rights do not extend to all the arms that a modern militia might need."
It sounds like they are agreeing that the Second Amendment does not cover just muskets, but they're drawing the line at some ambiguous point on arms that the militia might need.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the militia can't own the arms "it might need" doesn't that really curtail the capability of the militia?
Let's consider I am fantastically wealthy and have money to blow on goofy stuff, like defense of my homeland. In my opinion, I should be able to go buy and own an Abrams tank. Now, I might not have the right to drive that tank down main street to pick up the kids from school. Or to practice live fire drills and maneuvers in my back 40. But I have the *right* to own that tank. Or a rocket launcher. Or a surface to air missile.
A reasonable restriction, therefore, should not be on the OWNERSHIP of such devices and articles of war, but rather, how and when they can be used (so long as such outlet exists).
E.g. If I want to personally own a rack of Stinger missile launchers, I should be able to, provided that they are secured in an armory, and don't practice target shooting in unrestricted commercial airspace. The private ownership of those missiles should be unrestricted, provided they are secure from unlawful, malicious intent - so that they are available should the need ever arise.
Likewise, if I were to fund, privately, my own Minuteman missile silo, and delegate command authority to the US Government, I should be allowed to. Maybe paint my name on the warhead, put pictures above my fireplace on the mantle. Possession of that article of war would be severely restricted, but if we ever needed to glass over a foreign country who launched against us, I could feel confident in my bomb shelter that I have "done my part".
I believe the Militia (of the people) needs to have parity in modern warfare.
Period.
You want to restrict possession, or set period of time when I can train my tank crew on the use of my Abrams tank, fine. But ownership of articles of war, is a fundamental right.
Just my .02.
Can someone with an understanding of the issue break this down:
"(e) Finally, the panel opinion, Heller, and McDonald do not prevent Illinois from imposing reasonable limits on which arms may be carried in public. See Heller, 554 U.S. at 627. We can be reasonably confident that the Second Amendment rights are not limited to arms known to the Framers of the amendment, but also confident that the rights do not extend to all the arms that a modern militia might need."
It sounds like they are agreeing that the Second Amendment does not cover just muskets, but they're drawing the line at some ambiguous point on arms that the militia might need.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the militia can't own the arms "it might need" doesn't that really curtail the capability of the militia?
Let's consider I am fantastically wealthy and have money to blow on goofy stuff, like defense of my homeland. In my opinion, I should be able to go buy and own an Abrams tank. Now, I might not have the right to drive that tank down main street to pick up the kids from school. Or to practice live fire drills and maneuvers in my back 40. But I have the *right* to own that tank. Or a rocket launcher. Or a surface to air missile.
A reasonable restriction, therefore, should not be on the OWNERSHIP of such devices and articles of war, but rather, how and when they can be used (so long as such outlet exists).
E.g. If I want to personally own a rack of Stinger missile launchers, I should be able to, provided that they are secured in an armory, and don't practice target shooting in unrestricted commercial airspace. The private ownership of those missiles should be unrestricted, provided they are secure from unlawful, malicious intent - so that they are available should the need ever arise.
Likewise, if I were to fund, privately, my own Minuteman missile silo, and delegate command authority to the US Government, I should be allowed to. Maybe paint my name on the warhead, put pictures above my fireplace on the mantle. Possession of that article of war would be severely restricted, but if we ever needed to glass over a foreign country who launched against us, I could feel confident in my bomb shelter that I have "done my part".
I believe the Militia (of the people) needs to have parity in modern warfare.
Period.
You want to restrict possession, or set period of time when I can train my tank crew on the use of my Abrams tank, fine. But ownership of articles of war, is a fundamental right.
Just my .02.
unspellable
Member
Quote: Remember, these people are not regular politicians they are all criminals and they won't give up power until they are convicted and sent to prison or they die. The will of the people or the decision of the courts means nothing to them!!
I'm missing something. How does this distinguish them from "regular' politicians?
I'm missing something. How does this distinguish them from "regular' politicians?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wh8Jo99GJ7g
Judiciary committee live feed, on now. (2nd half, taking place in Chicago this afternoon)
McCarthy is speaking now, wonder how he'll offend gun owners today.
Judiciary committee live feed, on now. (2nd half, taking place in Chicago this afternoon)
McCarthy is speaking now, wonder how he'll offend gun owners today.
Skylerbone
Member
...
Last edited:
Phatty
Member
My update yesterday was nicely timed
This is great news, not just for Illinois but the rest of the country as well. The Kachalsky case in the 2nd Circuit has a much better chance of reaching the Supreme Court now.
Trent, pay no attention to the dissention opinion. It is nothing but a poor loser rant and a way for the anti-gun judges to try to influence the legislators in Illinois and the lower court judges who will be reviewing future cases.
This is great news, not just for Illinois but the rest of the country as well. The Kachalsky case in the 2nd Circuit has a much better chance of reaching the Supreme Court now.
Trent, pay no attention to the dissention opinion. It is nothing but a poor loser rant and a way for the anti-gun judges to try to influence the legislators in Illinois and the lower court judges who will be reviewing future cases.
How nice for you. But be that as it may, as I've discussed multiple times, each regulation of the rights described in the Second Amendment will, when and if litigated, be subject to judicial determination in the manner and applying the standards generally applicable to other regulation of enumerated rights.
But I strongly suspect that private ownership of Stinger missiles won't make the cut.
powell&hyde
Member
I think Todd did a good job at that meeting that Trent posted.
Warners
Member
Things looking UP in Illinois
This is GREAT news. I think this leaves Madigan and company only ONE option....to appeal to the SCOTUS, which I don't think they will want to do. Certainly other anti-gun states won't want them to do it, at least. We're one big step closer, I think. As a lifelong resident of the People's Republik of Illinois, I'm reluctant to get too excited, but this is very promising news.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local/illinois&id=9002745&rss=rss-wls-article-9002745
Warner
This is GREAT news. I think this leaves Madigan and company only ONE option....to appeal to the SCOTUS, which I don't think they will want to do. Certainly other anti-gun states won't want them to do it, at least. We're one big step closer, I think. As a lifelong resident of the People's Republik of Illinois, I'm reluctant to get too excited, but this is very promising news.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local/illinois&id=9002745&rss=rss-wls-article-9002745
Warner
Yeah Todd did a fantastic job at that Judicial committee hearing.
A guy can dream, can't he?
A guy can dream, can't he?
Dframe
Member
Breaking news! The court has refused to rehear the case!
Dframe
Member
I'm also a life long resident of Illinois. We are currently under the thumb of chicago occupation forces here in the Capitol. Like Warners I am cautiously optomisitc. Madigan will be under a lot of political pressure from places like New York, NOT to take this to scotus for fear of losing their OWN ability to pass draconian anti-gun laws.
Dave Workman
Member
I did an Examiner column on this today...
http://www.examiner.com/article/saf-scores-another-win-for-concealed-carry?cid=db_articles
It's interesting to watch these guys do the funky chicken in Springfield now because they have no choice.
It is also interesting to consider this: My take focuses on CCW. It would be astonishing, but not impossible, for Illinois lawmakers to do something with open carry. I think they'll go with some kind of CCW approach, but the OC movement would be partying until dawn if Illinois couldn't come up with something and then got stuck with "constitutional carry."
In which case, we could all lean back in our lawn chairs and
http://www.examiner.com/article/saf-scores-another-win-for-concealed-carry?cid=db_articles
It's interesting to watch these guys do the funky chicken in Springfield now because they have no choice.
It is also interesting to consider this: My take focuses on CCW. It would be astonishing, but not impossible, for Illinois lawmakers to do something with open carry. I think they'll go with some kind of CCW approach, but the OC movement would be partying until dawn if Illinois couldn't come up with something and then got stuck with "constitutional carry."
In which case, we could all lean back in our lawn chairs and
klcmschlesinger
Member
I agree with you Workman, but....
You said they are doing the funky chicken in Springfield. Even though our politicians are elected in Springfield, they are hardly ever there, even when session is in, they are in Chicago, cause that is where all criminals in this state go.....
You said they are doing the funky chicken in Springfield. Even though our politicians are elected in Springfield, they are hardly ever there, even when session is in, they are in Chicago, cause that is where all criminals in this state go.....
Phatty
Member
One of my pet peeves is that every news outlet reporting on the federal appeals court decision has a headline like, "7th Circuit Orders Illinois to Require Concealed Carry." The court did not order Illinois to require "concealed carry." Illinois simply has to allow the carrying of guns in public, be it open, concealed or both.
The leading CCW bill working its way through the Illinois General Assembly right now allows both open and concealed carry. I would be pleasantly surprised if the final bill permitted open carry.
Stinger missiles are more likely to make the cut than something like an M2 Browning machine gun, being as a Stinger is something one can carry, and an M2 is not.
The court is sort of in a corner here. If they continue down the bear=carry path, they are going to end up having to rule that basically any weapon that one can reasonably be said to be carried is something covered by the 2A.
At some point they are going to have to limit the bear=carry mantra to deal with a lot of things that can be easily hand carried or face the inevitable end result of their own logic which is going to make it very hard to ban a whole lot of things that are currently banned or very tough to come by.
The court is sort of in a corner here. If they continue down the bear=carry path, they are going to end up having to rule that basically any weapon that one can reasonably be said to be carried is something covered by the 2A.
At some point they are going to have to limit the bear=carry mantra to deal with a lot of things that can be easily hand carried or face the inevitable end result of their own logic which is going to make it very hard to ban a whole lot of things that are currently banned or very tough to come by.
Phatty
Member
I'm not seeing the connection between recognizing the right to carry weapons in public and the types of arms that are covered by the 2A. Using that same logic, because I have the right to "keep" arms, and "keeping arms" refers to the possession and storage of arms at one's residence, I therefore have the right to keep a battle tank in my garage.
I haven't seen any legal opinions that have made a connection between the types of arms that are covered by the 2A and the locations where the 2A extends. They have been treated as completely separate questions.
wriggly
Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2010
- Messages
- 308
I did not know Todd Vandermyde till today. He did an outstanding job. Why cant we get a guy like that for President?
I would be unsurprised if Madigan just said to hell with it and no bill passed and the 180 days expired. Then we would be in a weird position of not being in violation of the UUW act but every home rule unit could come up with their own set of rules and we would not be able to carry in any place covered by the phrase "supported in full or in part by public funds". It is "only" a class A misdemeanor, but a year in jail is no party.
Black Butte
Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2008
- Messages
- 888
In the end, Illinois will adopt may issue, and only for cause. Unless you can prove some crime syndicate has a contract out on you, you're carrying NOTHING in this state.
What's truly sad is the word "Illinois" is the French version of an Algonquin Indian word for "warriors" or "tribe of superior men."
What's truly sad is the word "Illinois" is the French version of an Algonquin Indian word for "warriors" or "tribe of superior men."
Deanimator
Member
Who do you think RUNS Illinois?
They don't call it the "combine" for nothing.
Did you think it was going to be easy?
There is a logical connection between the idea of bearing arms and what arms that applies to. Now that bearing has been equated to carrying by the court, there is at least some linkage of the idea that only arms that can be carried (presumably by a single person) are protected.
That would leave out things like artillery pieces, fighter jets, and nukes.
It would leave in a lot of things that are currently banned, or difficult and expensive to acquire.
I always thought the use of the phrase "in case of confrontation" found in Heller was an odd choice of words, and seemed out of place to me. I now wonder if it was deliberately added so that there is some rationale for banning or highly regulating items that the court might be able to rule are able to be carried, but not useful in case of confrontation. Things like bacteriological weapons comes to mind.
Today's ISRA Alert:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
