Posted on 12/11/2012 10:59:31 AM PST by JohnPierce
--EMBEDDED PDF HERE--
In an opinion issued today in the Illinois case of Moore v. Madigan, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense … implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.”
--IMAGE HERE--
The opinion is a joy to read as Judge Posner proceeds to shred the historical and public policy arguments against carry put forward by Illinois.
Here are some examples to warm your heart on this cold December afternoon:
Both Heller and McDonald do say that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, id. at 3036 (emphasis added); 554 U.S. at 628, but that doesn’t mean it is not acute outside the home. Heller repeatedly invokes a broader Second Amendment right than the right to have a gun in one’s home, as when it says that the amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” 554 U.S. at 592. Confrontations are not limited to the home.
….
Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower.
A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim, while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter.
That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.
The court has placed a 180 day stay to allow Illinois a chance to put together a shall-issue legislative solution in the state. But anyone familiar with Illinois politics can expect that the courts will be involved again before this issue is finally resolved in a constitutional manner.
In the meantime, this holding may be the first link in a chain that will finally put an end to the racist and discriminatory may-issue permitting schemes that still exist in a few less-enlightened states.
Merry Christmas America!
Or perhaps to protect themselves from wolves and bears and crazies as they traversed through the frontier?? Like duh....
Of course the Second Amendment extends beyond the four walls of an individual’s home. Do these DemoQuacks and libtards who seek to limit gun rights also propose that the right to free speech is limited to the confines of the home.
Of course it does. To BEAR arms means to CARRY them.
Aside from which, it is obvious that to BEAR arms means something different from KEEPING them, or the word would never have been included in the Second Amendment.
And the Bill of Rights was not instituted to protect the rights of state militias. It was instituted to protect the rights of individual Americans.
The people have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to both KEEP and CARRY weapons, for defense of their God-given right to go on living, and for other all other legitimate purposes.
I agree completely but it is good to see the Second Amendment getting the same respect as the First in the courts for a change! :)
Amen!
Posner is a gem. Of course, to some, he’s not conservative enough . . . .
Keep and bear arms. Keep = in the home. Bear=outside the home.
Actually it means more than that:
1887 Webster`s Dictionary:
“to bear, bear v.t., “
“1. to support and move; or carry
2. To be equipped, furnished, or marked with;
to have as belonging, distinguishing, identifying, or characterizing; as to bear a sword, an inscription,, a title, a good reutation or an evil look,
7. To be directed; to be pointed; as, to plant guns to bear upon a trench”
Actually it means more than that:
1887 Webster`s Dictionary:
“to bear, bear v.t., “
“1. to support and move; or carry
2. To be equipped, furnished, or marked with;
to have as belonging, distinguishing, identifying, or characterizing; as to bear a sword, an inscription,, a title, a good reputation or an evil look,
7. To be directed; to be pointed; as, to plant guns to bear upon a trench”
It applies outside my home. We both have carry permits and we carry!
Preach it, Brother.
Although it's in another jurisdiction, will this have any effect on the ongoing shall-issue CC lawsuit in Maryland?
considering the state of Kalifornia entices Mexican illegal gang thugs into the state as a sanctuary as well as using tax payer money to pay for their up keep, it’s past time for the restrictive anti gun laws of Kalifornia to be challenged. Common sense exposes that the anti gun laws in Kalifornia (Di Freakinstein) as well as many other states are predominantly meant to keep some law abiding American loving patriot from using one on the corrupt politicians who are hell bent on taking the liberty from all but the corrupt and criminal.
Posner is definitely an interesting judge. Sometimes he mystifies me, but other times he seems to decide a case just as I would, and does a superlative job of backing up the opinion.
The ultimate purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to secure the liberty of people against the tyranny of government.
And that scares the bejesus out of liberals, because they want no impediments (like armed citizens) to their totalitarian leftism.
I don't see muggers, ex-husbands, or burglars in there anywhere.
What I do see is that "a free State" is what is being defended by the 2nd Amendment.
And we protect that freedom not from muggers, but against usurpation of freedom by governments. The whole Bill of Rights is about securing people's rights AGAINST government.
So, while I agree with the good Judge's outcome, I disagree with his logic. We aren't protecting ourselves from muggers. We're protecting ourselves from excessively self-aggrandizing judges (and legislators and executives)!
Finally some good news for a change.
You have to wonder how the dear Liar is going to figure out a way to reverse this trend – after all, if people can defend themselves, it means they can stop Demo-thugs from taking their property.
This was a two to one decision. The actual decision is 21 pages. Judge Williams’ dissent was 24 pages and looks like a dissertation with the usual creative writing expected from from the Brady Campaign.
For those interested in reading it, the decision itself is at:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/NY0T097Q.pdf
The Seventh Circuit will not have any bearing on Maryland directly. However, now that we have a circuit split (the 2nd Circuit ruled just the opposite), this issue appears destined for the Supreme Court. Let’s just hope that no conservative supreme court justice gets replaced before it gets there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.