http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorial ... eapons.htmGuns: An Illinois court has ruled that the Second Amendment means what it says and has ordered the state legislature to adopt a law by June that lets citizens bear arms in self-defense, not just keep them.
On Feb. 22, a 5-4 majority of the 10-member U.S. Seventh Court of Appeals upheld the Dec. 11 decision, which had been rendered by a three-member panel, to address absurdity and inconsistency of Illinois gun laws that allowed ownership of a firearm, but not the right to carry it outside the home. In other words, the "right to keep but not to bear arms."
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Federal court: "We're not REALLY infringing"”
- Sat Mar 02, 2013 5:35 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Federal court: "We're not REALLY infringing"
- Replies: 11
- Views: 1469
Re: Federal court: "We're not REALLY infringing"
Here is an article from Investors Business Daily about the Illinois case:
- Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:59 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Federal court: "We're not REALLY infringing"
- Replies: 11
- Views: 1469
Re: Federal court: "We're not REALLY infringing"
All it says is that a state may regulate carry, and that it isn't an infringement to have requirements that out of staters may have a hard time complying with. It is a good example of picking and choosing cases to appeal very carefully, because they are not without risk. Go up on the wrong facts, get an adverse ruling is one thing, but giving the anti's a chance to get some law on their side is quite another.
We are plagued with gun ho types that see every case as "Victory or Death!" and bitterly criticize the NRA and other groups for not backing every one of them to the hilt. This is why caution is advisable. Heller and McDonald are examples of carefully selected plaintiffs and facts that knowledgeable counsel hunt for that have the best chance of being helpful. Some people don't mind being like Churchill said about the British, who lose every battle except the last one. I don't think this is the road to take.
In Illinois, carry is forbidden, and the 7th Circuit just invalidated that to force them to come up with something that is Constitutionally OK. California has no reciprocity whatsoever; most residents cannot legally obtain a CHL. That may change but a case by an out of state resident wanting to carry in California is not going to be successful, and as this illustrates may be actually detrimental in its ultimate effect. We need some other rulings to go out way before we can make the final legal assault.
We are plagued with gun ho types that see every case as "Victory or Death!" and bitterly criticize the NRA and other groups for not backing every one of them to the hilt. This is why caution is advisable. Heller and McDonald are examples of carefully selected plaintiffs and facts that knowledgeable counsel hunt for that have the best chance of being helpful. Some people don't mind being like Churchill said about the British, who lose every battle except the last one. I don't think this is the road to take.
In Illinois, carry is forbidden, and the 7th Circuit just invalidated that to force them to come up with something that is Constitutionally OK. California has no reciprocity whatsoever; most residents cannot legally obtain a CHL. That may change but a case by an out of state resident wanting to carry in California is not going to be successful, and as this illustrates may be actually detrimental in its ultimate effect. We need some other rulings to go out way before we can make the final legal assault.