Skip to main content

View Diary: This is why I carry a gun when I can. (219 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Somewhat bad form, I know ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlackSheep1, theatre goon

    but I just posted this comment in response to an "anti" who likewise believes that "normal" perceptions cannot include the concept of a self-defense right to keep and bear firearms in public:

    In a recent 2-1 majority opinion of the 7th Circuit citing the Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) Supreme Court decisions, the court struck down this state law as unconstitutional, writing:

    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. …
    Moore vs. Madigan (7th Cir. 2012)

    I do wish that debate opponents would not imply or state that those who subscribe to these legally supported views providing a constitutional basis for firearm ownership are somehow "not normal" or whatever other pejorative description that comes to mind.

    •  Why not quote the holding (6+ / 0-)

      in Moore, instead of simply cherry-picking language favorable to your position?

      The Court of Appeals, with an eye on the Heller decision, found that Illinois' absolute ban on carrying, violated the Second Amendment.  They also then stayed their order for six months to allow Illinois to amend the statute to something that would permit carrying outside the home, subject to whatever restrictions Illinois decides are appropriate.

      As long as the statute allows a CCW permit process, and is not implemented in such a fashion as to be a de facto ban, then it will pass constitutional scrutiny.

      I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

      by Wayward Wind on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 08:30:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The point that I addressed ... that you evidently (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slothlax, theatre goon

        missed ... was to refute that comment that "there was no constitutional right" to carry arms in public.

        Now ... if you want to nitpick, cherry-pick or raise other aspects of the decision, I would be happy to address them.

        Yes ... a stay was implemented to allow the legislature to enact a constitutionally enforceable regulation -- that WOULD recognize and permit the established public right to carry an accessible firearm.

        So ... what's your issue again -- based on the actual discussion at hand?

        •  There isn't a Second Amendment right (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino, slothlax, Beetwasher

          to carry a weapon in public.  Not as the law stands right now.

          Moore is a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision which struck down Illinois' ban on carrying, but stayed the holding for six months to allow Illinois to cure the deficiencies noted by the Court.

          Illinois has two choices: amend the law to meet the court's objections, or decline and appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.  Which way they will go is anybody's guess.  I think the smart decision would be to amend the law to allow issuance of CCW permits subject to the conditions that have been withstood challenge in other litigation.

          So as the law stands now, there is no constitutional right to carry; all states allow it by statute with varying degrees of conditions, from none (Vermont) to strict (NY and California).

          I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

          by Wayward Wind on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 01:33:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ummm ... is there any apparent Circuit conflict (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            with Moore -- that holds as a matter of precedent for the constitutional right to carry a firearm in public?  Or is there a striking misinterpretation of Heller and McDonald in the 7th Circuit decision in its holding?

            No ... I thought not.

            You might feel perfectly free to deny the constitutional import of Moore given the present posture of the case ... I do not.  And If you do not agree with me, where do you believe the IL legislature now stands on this particular constitutional question?

            •  Responses (0+ / 0-)

              I don't think there is a misinterpretation of Heller in Moore - quite the contrary, I think it the logical next step in the process.

              One of two things is going to happen.  Either Illinois will amend their law to allow CCW permits and the District Court will find that the amended law complies with the Heller holding, or they will stand pat and appeal to the Supreme Court

              The Supreme Court will either deny cert, thus making Moore the law of the land in the 7th Circuit but nowhere else (unlikely), or grant cert and render a decision whether Heller should be extended to include carrying a weapon in public, which is what I think they will do.

              Either way, given the language of Heller on the validity of federal, state, and local laws governing various aspects of firearms, I think they will ratify those restrictions, and Illinois will wind up with a very stringent CCW process.

              I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

              by Wayward Wind on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 03:55:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I do not believe the USSC will (0+ / 0-)

                grant cert on the issue until there is a conflict among the circuits. Until that time, Moore is without any evident, let alone compelling, counter-argument.  The decision therefore provides clear and substantial precedential authority in every other circuit beyond the 7th though not fully binding.

                It is premature to conclude whether the SC will ratify all the various laws now or to be on the books regulating firearms -- since we only know the much less determinate outer constitutional limits established under Heller and McDonald.

                The more reasonable position would be that some will be upheld and some won't.  And with respect to IL, the legislature and executive may prefer to keep pushing the boundaries of strict regulation.  If so, we shall see whether it will be upheld even by the 7th Circuit, which seemed to demonstrate little patience for continued tilting at settled law and principles.

    •  they AREN'T normal (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      alba, Sandino

      And saying they are doesn't make it so.

      WIth precious few exceptions you've got to be a raving lunatic to think that carrying a gun makes you safer.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site