Category: Guns

John Richardson notes one from the Chicago Sun-Times, where Lisa Madigan speaks about “reviewing her options,” and with the post editorializing they should follow New York’s lead:

The Legislature might even be able to find a way to continue banning concealed carry while rewriting the law to satisfy the appeals court, which said the current law doesn’t rest on sufficient justification. Short of that, the Legislature could consider a narrowly crafted law, such as that in New York, which has concealed carry in theory but does not grant many permits.

This is a lot of ridiculous handwringing and a complete denial of what the political realities are. Governor Quinn’s veto or a pro-gun ammunition bill, and the subsequent override of that veto speaks volumes. The political reality in Illinois is that Todd Vandermyde (NRA’s lobbyist in Springfield) has had concealed carry a hair’s breath away from having enough votes to pass, even over the objection of the politicians from the Chicago area. This ruling does nothing but strengthen his hand, and it’s hard to imagine that this will not now convince a couple more legislators to come over and vote for a shall-issue bill.

The Court has set a deadline. After the deadline, the threat is that Illinois could become Arizona. That’s going to put fear into politicians that have previously been hostile, or lukewarm the shall-issue bill. Both sides have an incentive to compromise, but theirs is stronger. Our fear is that the courts will be unwilling to follow through on their deadline, and the threats are empty. Or that Madigan will appeal to the whole panel and Posner’s ruling will be stayed. Given the strength of Posner’s opinion, I’m not sure that’s a risk they are going to be willing to take. I think this gets us the votes for a shall-issue bill, and probably a stronger one than they would have faced before this case won.

According to an update from NRA board member Todd Rathner, he’s going to be on HuffPo Live today at 4:30 EST. He’s hoping to hear from Second Amendment supporters, so tune in if you can.

The Illinois handgun carry ban has been struck down by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. From Alan Gura’s firm, From NRA, from Volokh. Looks like Posner was in the majority. One justice voted against. I guess Posner is coming around. More to follow.

UPDATE from Bitter: For those of you who can’t access the document for any reason, here are some choice quotes:

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.

The Second Amendment states in its entirety that “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” (emphasis added). 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.

For the anti-gunners who simply say that the right is outdated and irrelevant:

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.

UPDATE: Dave Hardy: Astonishing ruling! What’s kind of sad is that it is astonishing. Dave notes that this ruling effectively sets up the circuit split that will likely lead to a carry case going before the Supreme Court.

UPDATE: Clayton Cramer: “One of the Chicago newspaper articles included a comment by a reader, warning that the streets of Illinois cities will run with blood.  Perhaps…but how could you tell the difference?”

UPDATE: Kevin Baker: “And Then There Were None” Some might say that this is a bit premature, but the politics of this issue in Illinois has been teetering on the verge, and I think this court decision will make things get very real for a lot of the anti-gun folks in the Windy City. The politics of this will play very much in our favor, I think.

There have been three cases working their way up the 9th Circuit, which covers California, Hawaii, and most of the other western states. Dave Hardy has links to oral arguments in all of them. I have not yet had a chance to listen, but today, there was arguments in the case of Mehl v. Blanas, brought to you by the same guy that brought us the <sarcasm>fantastic and victory for gun rights in Silveria v. Lockyer</sarcasm> (I put it in tags, because the attorney who argued that case thinks he really won it). There is a very real chance that this case will make all the hard work done so far come crashing down like a carefully and painstakingly built house of cards.

Apparently in Mehl today, the Attorney for the Appellant started off oral arguments being late to court. I suppose this is “how the pros really handle appellate work.” Firearms attorney Bobbie K. Ross was live tweeting the oral arguments today. At first I was confused as to what case this was, and was not aware Gorski’s case was still out there. Needless to say, fingers should be crossed this case doesn’t cause extensive damage.