Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals holds that the Second Amendment applies outside the home
Monachus Lex ^ | December 11, 2012 | John Pierce

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!


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: banglist; heller; illinois; mcdonald; secondamendment; shallnotbeinfringed
Hell yeah!
1 posted on 12/11/2012 10:59:36 AM PST by JohnPierce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce
You really think men had bore just in case of an invasion aka militia??

Or perhaps to protect themselves from wolves and bears and crazies as they traversed through the frontier?? Like duh....

2 posted on 12/11/2012 11:07:05 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

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.


3 posted on 12/11/2012 11:09:02 AM PST by AtlasStalled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce
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.”

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.

4 posted on 12/11/2012 11:10:00 AM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

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! :)


5 posted on 12/11/2012 11:14:40 AM PST by JohnPierce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

Amen!


6 posted on 12/11/2012 11:15:18 AM PST by JDoutrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

Posner is a gem. Of course, to some, he’s not conservative enough . . . .


7 posted on 12/11/2012 11:20:47 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

Keep and bear arms. Keep = in the home. Bear=outside the home.


8 posted on 12/11/2012 11:25:18 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

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”


9 posted on 12/11/2012 11:29:41 AM PST by bunkerhill7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

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”


10 posted on 12/11/2012 11:30:55 AM PST by bunkerhill7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

It applies outside my home. We both have carry permits and we carry!


11 posted on 12/11/2012 11:32:00 AM PST by RetiredArmy (1 Cor 15: 50-54 & 1 Thess 4: 13-17. That about covers it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce
"....will finally put an end to the racist and discriminatory may-issue permitting schemes that still exist in a few less-enlightened states."

Preach it, Brother.

Although it's in another jurisdiction, will this have any effect on the ongoing shall-issue CC lawsuit in Maryland?

12 posted on 12/11/2012 11:43:47 AM PST by SnuffaBolshevik (In a tornado, even turkeys can fly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

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.


13 posted on 12/11/2012 11:55:39 AM PST by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

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.


14 posted on 12/11/2012 12:01:25 PM PST by Teacher317 ('Tis time to fear when tyrants seem to kiss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

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.


15 posted on 12/11/2012 12:05:43 PM PST by Uncle Miltie (BOHICA eGOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

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)!

16 posted on 12/11/2012 12:11:27 PM PST by Uncle Miltie (BOHICA eGOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

Finally some good news for a change.


17 posted on 12/11/2012 12:14:08 PM PST by History Repeats (sic transit gloria mundi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

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.


18 posted on 12/11/2012 12:15:01 PM PST by chainsaw56 (Do you have the right to defend yourself??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

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


19 posted on 12/11/2012 12:15:03 PM PST by Sasparilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SnuffaBolshevik

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.


20 posted on 12/11/2012 12:22:24 PM PST by JohnPierce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled
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

To ask the question is to answer it. Of course they do! they're just careful how they say it.

21 posted on 12/11/2012 12:23:53 PM PST by chesley (Vast deserts of political ignorance makes liberalism possible - James Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317

Posner has confused me on more than one occasion as well. But he was dead on the money with this one. :)


22 posted on 12/11/2012 12:24:32 PM PST by JohnPierce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

There should be bring your gun to work everyday.


23 posted on 12/11/2012 12:25:21 PM PST by bmwcyle (We have gone over the cliff and we are about to hit the bottom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

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


24 posted on 12/11/2012 12:27:06 PM PST by Vermont Lt (We are so screwed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie
We aren't protecting ourselves from muggers. We're protecting ourselves from excessively self-aggrandizing judges (and legislators and executives)!

The only difference is the later group tend to have much more education, and can do you much more financial harm, than the former.

25 posted on 12/11/2012 12:30:04 PM PST by chesley (Vast deserts of political ignorance makes liberalism possible - James Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie
What I do see is that "a free State" is what is being defended by the 2nd Amendment.

This preamble in no way limits the right to keep and bear arms to only defense of the state.

Some State constitutions have this same language. Others use language such as "in defense of themselves and the State" (Florida, Texas and others) which explicitely spells out collective and individual defense, but hunting isn't mentioned. (Are we to conclude that there is no right to hunt?) But leave it to gun grabbers (and others) to exploit silence. This is fallacious reasoning.

26 posted on 12/11/2012 12:32:25 PM PST by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: nonsporting

Fair enough; I’m in favor of the 2nd Amendment for all the foregoing reasons.

I don’t like the judge’s limited focus on 1:1 threats. While perhaps true, that’s too narrow a basis for a permanent and wide justification. IMHO.


27 posted on 12/11/2012 12:36:23 PM PST by Uncle Miltie (BOHICA eGOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

Kel-tec .380

Amex card


28 posted on 12/11/2012 12:50:53 PM PST by bicyclerepair ( >-> Zombies eat brains. >-> 50% of FL is safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

BTTT


29 posted on 12/11/2012 12:55:32 PM PST by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bicyclerepair

I’m more of an XD guy myself. But a tragic canoe accident, yada yada....


30 posted on 12/11/2012 12:57:15 PM PST by Uncle Miltie (BOHICA eGOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bicyclerepair

http://www.weaponscache.com/forum/pistols/1934-springfield-xd-torture-test.html


31 posted on 12/11/2012 1:03:45 PM PST by Uncle Miltie (BOHICA eGOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

I already do. You only have to get mugged once here in Chicago when you finally decide its better to break the law and keep yourself safe than to obey it and wind up dead.


32 posted on 12/11/2012 1:05:04 PM PST by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

I’m an HnK bigot myself, btw I had a canoe accident too. We’re we on the same river? (Chicago River that is. So murky and green they’ll never be found!)


33 posted on 12/11/2012 1:08:31 PM PST by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

Bookmark.


34 posted on 12/11/2012 1:53:19 PM PST by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

well duh

Individual rights do not just apply at home.

I think most second graders should already know this


35 posted on 12/11/2012 2:29:39 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

It will take several court instructions to the state of Illinois and Chicago as they are populated in government by progressive mental defectives. You’ve got to talk and write slowly, using simple short words and sentences, for these people to understand.


36 posted on 12/11/2012 3:43:56 PM PST by RetiredTexasVet (The law of unintended consequences is an unforgiving and vindictive b!tch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The last comma is not in the original writing. Be that as it may, the first clause does not limit the second clause:

[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”

[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”

[Schulman:] “(2) Is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right ‘shall not be infringed’?”

[Copperud:] “(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”

[Schulman:] “(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”

[Copperud:] “(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”

[Schulman:] “(4) Does the clause ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,’ grant a right to the government to place conditions on the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms,’ or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?”

[Copperud:] “(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.”

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

37 posted on 12/11/2012 6:42:05 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce; marktwain
Thank you for this thread John and thank you Mark for the extremely clarifying post in #37. Hats off to you both.

These are our dreaded days IMO.

38 posted on 12/11/2012 8:16:50 PM PST by houeto (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnPierce

Thanks to the Supreme court that protected a piece of the constitution for a change.


39 posted on 12/11/2012 8:20:57 PM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

Good catch. I certainly didn’t think much of “handgun
in one hand and phone in the other” that was in Heller.


40 posted on 12/11/2012 10:44:40 PM PST by cycjec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

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.


41 posted on 12/12/2012 4:37:13 AM PST by Peet (Alles hat ein Ende nur die Wurst zwei hat. (Monroe in "Grimm"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SnuffaBolshevik
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

42 posted on 12/12/2012 4:42:45 AM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie
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

43 posted on 12/12/2012 4:45:05 AM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled
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. :-(

44 posted on 12/12/2012 4:52:49 AM PST by Aunt Polgara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
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.

45 posted on 12/12/2012 4:55:57 AM PST by Aunt Polgara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Aunt Polgara

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.


46 posted on 12/12/2012 5:55:23 AM PST by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson