Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

7th Circuit Court Lets Posner Ruling Stand; Huge Win For Concealed Carry
Ammo Land ^ | Feb 22, 2013 | AmmoLand Staff

Posted on 02/22/2013 1:16:11 PM PST by EXCH54FE

BELLEVUE, WA --(Ammoland.com)- The Second Amendment Foundation today won a significant victory for concealed carry when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals let stand a December ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that forces Illinois to adopt a concealed carry law, thus affirming that the right to bear arms exists outside the home.

The ruling came in Moore v. Madigan, a case filed by SAF. The December opinion that now stands was written by Judge Richard Posner, who gave the Illinois legislature 180 days to “craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment…on the carrying of guns in public.”

That clock is ticking, noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.

“Illinois lawmakers need to create some kind of licensing system or face the prospect of not having any regulations at all when Judge Posner’s deadline arrives,” Gottlieb said. “They need to act. They can no longer run and hide from this mandate.”

“We were delighted with Judge Posner’s ruling in December,” he continued, “and today’s decision by the entire circuit to allow his ruling to stand is a major victory, and not just for gun owners in Illinois. Judge Posner’s ruling affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms, itself, extends beyond the boundary of one’s front door.”

In December, Judge Posner wrote, “The right to ‘bear’ as distinct from the right to ‘keep’ arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of ‘bearing’ arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; guncontrol; secondamendment
7th Circuit Court Lets Posner Ruling Stand; Huge Win For Concealed Carry
1 posted on 02/22/2013 1:16:16 PM PST by EXCH54FE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

Good on Alan Gottlieb and SAF.
They are doing excellent work on the legal front.


2 posted on 02/22/2013 1:19:16 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE
Left-wing judges will next turn their backs on stare decisis.
3 posted on 02/22/2013 1:21:28 PM PST by Steely Tom (If the Constitution can be a living document, I guess a corporation can be a person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

A good day for the rights of citizens. Considering the other affronts ongoing and being attempted, this is good news indeed. Hope the 7th Circuit holds their feet to the fire and requires action no matter any appeals process.


4 posted on 02/22/2013 1:30:33 PM PST by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

Wonder if Madigan will take this to the Supremes? It would be great to have this ruling applicable throughout the country! I guess the SAF will if she doesn’t.


5 posted on 02/22/2013 1:36:37 PM PST by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom
“Left-wing judges will next turn their backs on stare decisis.”

If they do then everyone in IL can carry without a permit after 180 days, if they otherwise aren't barred from owning guns.

6 posted on 02/22/2013 1:41:16 PM PST by Beagle8U (Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

“Left-wing judges will next turn their backs on stare decisis.”

I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point we see the Obama administration (perhaps through his proxies on the Supreme Court, Kagan and Sotomayer) come out as officially opposed to the concept of “stare decisis”, making the argument that changing times require changed positions on key issues.

“The decisions of those old white guys from the past... should not be used as a club to govern the multicolored Americans of today!”


7 posted on 02/22/2013 1:47:20 PM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Road Glide
“The decisions of those old white guys from the past... should not be used as a club to govern the multicolored Americans of today!”

Exactly. But it will be a one-way street.

Precidents set by "old white guys" will be fair game for the circular file. Precident set by judges who found "the right way" will be treated with the greatest respect, considered untouchable.

The same way the Senate democrats try to end the filibuster when they're in control, but you know perfectly well would scream and yell for its return the second they're in the minority.

And the MSM will take up both sides of the argument too, without the slightest embarrassment.

Welcome to the land of the Free and the Home of the Low Information Voter.

8 posted on 02/22/2013 1:54:47 PM PST by Steely Tom (If the Constitution can be a living document, I guess a corporation can be a person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

soory- Judge you are dead wrong-wrong-wrong - the right to bear arms is a WAR term which EXPLICITLY means to carry, furnish, be equipped with, support arms, for WAR.
Look it up in the 19th century Webster dictionaries that have been faithful to its centuries-old true etymology.
KEEP has nothing to do with arms in the home- it means you can KEEP ARMS ANYWHERE=- VIZ= The Second Amendment has no limits on geographical location nor firepower.

French, Dutch and English documents dating from the 15th Century all have BEARING ARMS and WAR in the same sentences. Look it up, BEARING ARMS is never used anywhere in self defence “AGAINST BURGLARS..”
preposterous!
Definition of to “KEEP” ‘ to preserve and maintain.. TO GUARD; DEFEND
to “KEEP” `means NOT TO LET GO ONE`S POSSESSION OR CONTROL’
“KEEPER”,n., “one who watches, GUARDS, maintains”

to “BEAR: 1. to support and move; CARRY.
2. to be equipped furnished ..as to BEAR A SWORD.
3, to be directed; to be pointed, as TO PLANT GUNS TO BEAR UPON AS TRENCH’”

Webster`s Dictionary 1887


9 posted on 02/22/2013 2:05:30 PM PST by bunkerhill7 ("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Marchione.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

soory- Judge you are dead wrong-wrong-wrong - the right to bear arms is a WAR term which EXPLICITLY means to carry, furnish, be equipped with, support arms, for WAR.
Look it up in the 19th century Webster dictionaries that have been faithful to its centuries-old true etymology.
KEEP has nothing to do with arms in the home- it means you can KEEP ARMS ANYWHERE=- VIZ= The Second Amendment has no limits on geographical location nor firepower.

French, Dutch and English documents dating from the 15th Century all have BEARING ARMS and WAR in the same sentences. Look it up, BEARING ARMS is never used anywhere in self defence “AGAINST BURGLARS..”
preposterous!
Definition of to “KEEP” ‘ to preserve and maintain.. TO GUARD; DEFEND
to “KEEP” `means NOT TO LET GO ONE`S POSSESSION OR CONTROL’
“KEEPER”,n., “one who watches, GUARDS, maintains”

to “BEAR: 1. to support and move; CARRY.
2. to be equipped furnished ..as to BEAR A SWORD.
3, to be directed; to be pointed, as TO PLANT GUNS TO BEAR UPON AS TRENCH’”

Webster`s Dictionary 1887


10 posted on 02/22/2013 2:05:30 PM PST by bunkerhill7 ("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Marchione.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE; marktwain

Pinging marktwain!


11 posted on 02/22/2013 2:05:54 PM PST by TEXOKIE (We must surrender only to our Holy God and never to the evil that has befallen us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

When will we get a ruling like this that applies to the poor schmucks who live in the most populous state (by far) of Union — California — limiting the unlimited power of the vile SOBs in Sacramento? What, the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to 12% of the American people?


12 posted on 02/22/2013 2:28:12 PM PST by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

“It is now up to the legislature,” Gottlieb said, “to craft a statute that recognizes the right of ordinary citizens to carry outside the home, without a sea of red tape or a requirement to prove any kind of need beyond the cause of personal protection.”

We need this in my state. I can’t even carry a rifle in the car and rounds at the same time and I am considered to be carrying a loaded weapon. SO? I’m carrying a loaded F150, a hunting knife, and a tire iron too.

I just want to keep a .22 in the truck loaded with some stingers in case of emergency...is that so wrong?


13 posted on 02/22/2013 2:43:59 PM PST by ez (Laws only apply to little people. Criminals, politicians, and newsies are exempt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
California just boxed themselves into a corner. Federal law now backs up the 2nd amendment in the right to bare (carry) arms. If you pass a law regulating that right to carry openly than you must allow concealed carry, without a permit being required. If you require a permit to carry concealed than you can not limit open carry. State law restricts open carry loaded or unloaded. If that stands the test through the courts than cities and counties can not restrict concealed carry on your person, in the car, on your boat, etc.... The only way they can keep their concealed carry regulations would be have unrestricted open carry.
14 posted on 02/22/2013 3:05:07 PM PST by Mat_Helm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

the judge did the right thing.


15 posted on 02/22/2013 3:07:09 PM PST by what is up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mat_Helm

Remember, Spell Check and Grammer Check are your friends.


16 posted on 02/22/2013 3:10:38 PM PST by TexasRedeye (Eschew obfuscation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill7
In the 1856 Supreme Court case "Dred Scott v Sanford", the Supremes ruled that it was absurd to think that a black former slave could have the rights of a citizen, which the Chief Justice explained included:
More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety.

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.


17 posted on 02/22/2013 3:15:39 PM PST by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mat_Helm
A common mistake, but a good post otherwise.

The right to bear arms is the right to carry.

The right to bare arms is the right to have shirts without sleeves.

The other kind of bear is the furry kind.

18 posted on 02/22/2013 3:23:55 PM PST by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

WOW!


19 posted on 02/22/2013 2:56:20 PM PST by bunkerhill7 ("The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower"-NY State Senator Marchione.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

"Remember, Spell Check and Grammer Check are your friends."

Don't forget Grammar Check.

20 posted on 02/22/2013 3:21:04 PM PST by SnuffaBolshevik (In a tornado, even turkeys can fly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Road Glide

I thought that the SCOTUS has never been bound by precedent.


21 posted on 02/22/2013 5:30:10 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Skeeter


GO AHEAD SHINE MY SHOES

22 posted on 02/23/2013 4:18:57 AM PST by devolve ( -------- -- --It is not where Obama was born that is the problem - it is where he*s living now--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vette6387

You cannot appeal a decision in your favor.


23 posted on 02/23/2013 5:14:18 AM PST by marktwain (The MSM must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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