7th Circuit Court of Appeals holds that the Second Amendment applies outside the home

Monachus Lex ^ | December 11, 2012 | John Pierce

[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!

[Peet]

Can we do this in MA next? Can we please, huh? Can we?

---

If you can write the above and are NOT a member of G.O.A.L. I strongly urge you to join/support them. http://www.goal.org

Now to your question: The latest issue of GOAL News documents a shift in strategy. Rather than try to fix (the abominable) CH180 in one bill, they are adopting a piecemeal approach — exactly the method used to chip away our rights will re-instate them.

[Abundy]

although I can't see the 4th Circuit siding with Maryland in the case, if it does then the issue of carrying outside the home and/or concealed carry will end up at SCOTUS due to the different rulings from two different circuits.

If MD loses (and us serfs in MD win) you can bet Gansler will appeal the ruling up for en banc and SCOTUS review...he wants to be governor and must play to his statist base in PG, MONKEY, Baltimore Counties and Balt. City

[Abundy]

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)!

respectfully disagree...muggers, rapists, et. al. all negatively impact your freedom

therefore protecting yourself from them is just as important as protecting yourself from tyranny

[Aunt Polgara]

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.

Well, they already think that religion is only a right within the confines of a church building. :-(

[Aunt Polgara]

muggers, rapists, et. al. all negatively impact your freedom therefore protecting yourself from them is just as important as protecting yourself from tyranny

Yes, but muggers, rapists, et. al. only get us one or two at a time. An evil government can get all of us at once.

[Abundy]

I don’t disagree, just pointing out that the pre-existing right covers both issues, not just one. and that an argument can be made that there really is no difference between the two sets of criminals.