"We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home," Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's majority opinion.The Illinois legislature has 180 days to write a better-tailored law.
"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. 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," he continued.
"Illinois 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," Posner wrote.
December 12, 2012
The 7th Circuit strikes down the Illinois concealed-carry ban.
The Sun-Times reports:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
38 comments:
As if that Pesky Constitution or SCOTUS precedence matters to them.
The excerpt from the decision was clear enough that even I could understand what he wrote.
OK!
At the corral.
At the corral.
An utterly stupid comment, Inga.
Chicago has draconian gun control laws, and it's the murder capital of the U.S. Chicago is the OK Corral with strict gun control laws.
As I said, understanding things is not your strong suit.
Reports that former Chicago Mayor Richard Daley was rushed to the emergency room in an apoplectic fit were unconfirmed as of this writing.
Shouting Thomas, Camden, NJ, has for years been in the top few cities in murders per capita. Now the mayor and police chief has laid off the entire police force in order to bust the union and make employing a proper force affordable. Maybe they'll take up concealed carry next.
Leftist policies mix together to trample rights, waste money, and increase crime rates.
The Mall in the news where the shooting took place... a "gun free zone".
The theater where the Batman shooting took place... a "gun free zone".
I've heard that with the exception of one shooting incident, ALL shooting incidents of this type have taken place in "gun free zones".
BTW... A "gun free zone" is not a zone where you can obtain a free gun... a gun free zone in a designated area where if one goes into that zone with a gun there is very little likelihood that someone else will be there with a gun...
We have been making sure the shooters were safe by advertising to them where the likelihood bystanders had a chance to defend themselves was intentionally reduced by designating them "gun free zones".
My advice for whatever is worth... if you ever come across a sign that says "gun free zone"... dont panic... but get the hell out of there as soon as possible.
A conceal carry ban is just making sure that a prospective shooter will feel ever safer.
Inga said...
OK!
At the corral.
You'd think at some point the left would put reality above fantasy if only to preserve a veneer of integrity. They assured us blood would run in the streets if the assualt weapons ban wasn't renewed. When it wasn't renewed there as no effect at all. They assured us the state civil rights initiatives would remove blacks from universities and ban mammograms. When they passed they miraculously discovered none of their policies were effected. It's simply amazing that no matter how many times reality proves their scare tactics wrong they simply keep asserting them.
My objection isn't to the tactics, they're a regrettable but ingrained part of politics. I'm merely mocking the left's claim to be "reality based" and "pro-science". The left's entire appeal is rooted in emotion, whether it be fear, hate, or envy.
"Gun Free Zone" = Unarmed Victim Zone.
The Illinois legislature has 180 days to write a better-tailored law
...or to decide to not mess with citizens' 2nd Amendment rights.
Concealed carry in a gun free zone really makes it safe. What are the odds that two people have a gun in a gun free zone.
It's the old bombs on an airplane trick. Always pack a bomb in your luggage.
I generally don't enter businesses that post their stupidity in the front window. We are fortunate to live in an open carry state and I have a CCW permit good in most states. Illinois better decide if they want to protect their citizens by allowing them to defend themselves inside their home or in public or continue allowing black genocide in Chicago. When they rewrite their current law under court order I sincerely hope they don't get cute again and make the process customer friendly with accepted limitations, costs and qualifications. The OK Corral was a battle of good vs evil. What is happening in What is occurring in Chicago is evil and inexcusable.
At least person a day is murdered in Chicago, where gun control laws are very very strict.
Gun bans have been an abject failure wherever tried, unless you create a total paramilitary state.
My son bought a 40 cal Glock and tried it out at the range. Using regular target rounds they would shoot into a large log and see small holes where they hit the target.
Then switching to using a box of expensive wad cutter rounds that are the ones used for self defense, they started blowing out large chunks of the log and cut it in two by shooting 8 rounds in about 2 seconds.
Those 40 cal wad cutter rounds are what all Federal Agencies have recently stockpiled in the hundreds of millions "for target practicing."
Obama's Imperial forces don't intend to be out gunned by their subjects.
--"We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home," Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's majority opinion.--
I can't believe that's a gun-grabber argument.
The post-modernists don't understand history.
Or they're blinded by technology.
Inga has no problem with the strong preying on the weak.
I ask again, how did it work out for the Germans?
Why were you in a refugee camp again?
"keep and bear arms" isn't clear enough? Why is it necessary to say bearing arms is predicated on self-defense?
Frankly, the argument seems like a whittling away of rights.
you can keep and bear arms, period.
I don't expect her to understand. I talked about this with 2 NYC Jews, 1 side which lost family at Auschwitz.
Deer in the headlights. Couldn't wrap their brains around the possibity.
IL is finally with the majority of the states, regressive holdout it was. But it's a blue state.
So, how's Katrina-on-the-Hudson?
The oh-so-enlightened Nanny Bloomberg declared open season on voters when he refused the governor's request that the NYNG be allowed to roam NYC.
I've heard that with the exception of one shooting incident, ALL shooting incidents of this type have taken place in "gun free zones".
Where did you here this? And please clarify what you mean by "shooting incidents of this type". Because however you define "this type", you are probably wrong.
Inga, how many other states have some form of concealed carry?
If it was as bad as you think, wouldn't the news be worse?
Once they smell the tax money, it might not be that restrictive.
"And please clarify what you mean by "shooting incidents of this type". Because however you define "this type", you are probably wrong."
I have no idea what the statistics would say, but there is a clear pattern of shooters with (in my opinion) mental illnesses unloading on a large number of innocents in gun free zones.
Aurora, the universities, malls, Ft Hood, Columbine.
I'm sure there are exceptions. Loughner is an exception.
But my view is that some of these psychos wouldn't have even committed the mass shooting if they couldn't find a gun free zone. I think in some cases, the gun free zone is actually provocative.
The Illinois legislature has 180 days to write a better-tailored law
So what happens if no such law is passed? Does IL just become an "anyone can carry, anyplace" state?
Personally, I think that would be great, but I'd like to know what will actually happen.
Ah, the OK Corral and the myth of the gun-crazy murdering old West: #6 in Cracked's 6 Ridiculous History Myths You Probably Believe Are True.
Louis L'Amour made a living off this trope, but in his nonfiction writing, he would point out that (a) guns were common, (b) many Westerners were Civil War veterans with weapons familiarity and not likely to be intimidated by someone with a gun, and hence (c) gun violence was not at all common.
L'Amour also pointed out many of the gun-toters were kids under 25 and had a tendency to act out around booze and women.
But I have to agree with 7th Circus' argument the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with individuals. The relevant Amendment is the 9th.
Which does allow individuals to carry weapons.
So this is a symbolic striking of the law so that the real chicago mob, it's political hack bureau can write a new law, written in a different way to circumvent the 7th circuit.
Ah, the OK Corral and the myth of the gun-crazy murdering old West:
Except the population of Tombstone was a little over 3,400 people making the murder rate the year of the shootout a little under 88 per 100,000, an astoundingly high murder rate. New Orleans' current rate (the worst in the country) is about 52 per 100,000 .
So I guess the Wild West was quite violent after all.
Freder Frederson said...
So I guess the Wild West was quite violent after all.
Three murders in a year is quite violent? I know it works out to a high rate compared to a modern big city, but really? You picked one year in one town, the poster child of the wild west, and it only had 3 murders?
That really does destroy the myth.
traditionalguy said...
The wad cutter ammo is used by most law enforcement agencies nowadays, with more going to it over time. It has two advantages over the regular rounds:
a) Superior stopping power;
b) Greatly reduced chance of passing through a target into someone behind.
Both are important for officer and civilian safety. The safety of the perp? Irrelevant.
Just posted this over at Volokh.com:
Just read the opinion, and was struck by the time spent on levels of scrutiny, while expressly declining to set such. The one thing that we do know, in that respect, is that in the 7th Circuit, the level of judicial scrutiny for 2nd Amdt. self-defense cases is greater than rational basis. The state can't just state that it believes that gun laws that prevent self-defense outside the house or shop might reduce crime, and have the courts defer to their rationale there.
I was also struck by how much Judge Posner discussed alternatives, which gets us into at least intermediate scrutiny. Under rational basis scrutiny, better alternatives are really irrelevant. All that is really required is that the legislature had some reason for the law that it felt was sufficient. But, strict scrutiny requires just the opposite, that this is the least restrictive means for implementing the policy. Some of the Judge's opinion seemed to be pointing out that there were quite a number of less restrictive means to implementing the legislature's meta-goal of reducing crime.
It will be interesting to see where 2nd Amdt. self-defense scrutiny comes out. My guess right now is some sort of nuanced high-intermediate scrutiny, but only time will tell, and a change in the makeup of the Supreme Court over the next 4 years may change this dramatically. Nevertheless, it is hard to fathom why a higher level of scrutiny would be applied to rights found in the pnumembras and emminations of the Bill of Rights, than for the 2nd enumerated right there.
Ann, of course, is our resident Con Law expert, and likely has a much better feel for this sort of thing that those of us who aren't experts could ever aspire to. So, any comments here on her part would be more than appreciated.
Well, other than the fact it's not "wad-cutter" ammo, fine.
Let me add the BAR/BRI level of back story for my last post. (I.e., the level of knowledge that you need to pass the bar exam).
The type and level of analysis required to determine whether or not laws are Constitutional (under the U.S. Constitution) is called "scrutiny". There are three basic levels: rational basis, intermediate, and strict scrutiny. Rational basis is what applies to most laws, and requires mainly that the legislature only have a (not illegal) rationale for the law. It need not be the best solution, and, indeed, it may make the problem worse (e.g. ObamaCare). That doesn't matter.
However, when it comes to fundamental rights, the standard is often much higher, and is called "strict scrutiny" for the most fundamental of rights. The legislature not only needs to give a reason for the law, but it must be a compelling state interest, and the law must be the least restrictive means of accomplishing that goal. Intermediate scrutiny is somewhere in between, and when I last took BAR/BRI, primarily applied to laws that discriminated on the basis of sex or alienage. Laws that discriminate on the basis of race (or, by extension, national origin), limitations on free speech or religion, etc., all receive strict scrutiny, as, I think that most here would agree, they should.
Now, things are never as clean cut as we would like, and this is esp. true in this area. I often get the feeling that the Justices tweak their scrutiny analysis a bit to get to desired results. So, things don't fall neatly into the three categories of scrutiny that we were taught when studying for the bar exam.
The problem with 2nd Amdt. jurisprudence is that a lot of this is pretty new. The Supreme Court has essentially refused to set the level of scrutiny for 2nd Amdt. cases, as did Judge Posner here. Rather, we just know that it is higher than rational basis. Logically, I think that it should be of similar stature and importance to the other enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights, requiring strict scrutiny, esp. given its priority in being placed second, after freedom of speech and religion. And, esp. since some unenumerated rights, notably privacy (and, thus reproduction and abortion) were considered "fundamental".
Back to a future Supreme Court. Because the current Court has refused to set a firm level of scrutiny for 2nd Amdt. cases, the easiest way for a more progressive court to tweak this would be, I think, to distinguish from Heller, etc., and then set a lower level that was still less deferential than rational basis.
Those 40 cal wad cutter rounds are what all Federal Agencies have recently stockpiled in the hundreds of millions "for target practicing."
I am a lot less worried about this than many of the people I know, and is partially because of how well armed so much of "red" America is these days. Friends are buying bricks and cases of ammo, in different calibers, for their various weapons - long guns for intermediate and long range, and heavy and light pistol rounds for defense and carry.
So, while the feds may ultimately outgun the citizenry on a per person basis, they are going to be massively outgunned by the citizenry, maybe on a 100-1 or better basis, based on the number of guns and people with guns in the latter category. (Esp. if the feds can't depend on or utilize the military). Besides, much of the military, and even a lot of the armed civilian side of the government is more sympathetic to gun rights and the like, than they are to a totalitarian government.
If I know my Illinois politicians like I think I know my Illinois politicians, this will be drawn out as long as possible and they will make it as hard as possible for the average guy to get a permit. Hoops upon hoops upon hoops will have to be jumped through. The reaction of our media darlings at the Sun Times to this ruling is a good indicator that those same politicians will be supported in the press. Also remember that the "conservative" paper in town, The Tribune, editorialized when Heller passed that the 2A should be repealed. It is quite a state and I love Obama. He is my savior.
Bruce Hayden,
Thank you for the description of scrutiny.
You left out the two ends of the spectrum: 2nd Amendment, which is less than rational basis and Abortion, which is higher than strict scrutiny.
Amazing that the right not found at all in the Constitution is upheld so much more vigorously than the one actually in the Bill of Rights.
And yes, my last post was a little tongue-in-cheek.
But only a very little.
Post a Comment