Hey Lisa
Posted on 02/22/2013 11:35:06 AM PST by Brad from Tennessee
SPRINGFIELD — A divided federal appeals court today rejected Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s request for a rehearing on the case where the state has been ordered to allow citizens to carry guns in public.
Madigan made the request following the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in December that gave Illinois 180 days to put together a law that would allow concealed weapons in Illinois.
There has been no word yet from Madigan’s office on her next move. She could choose to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court or decide to let the ruling stand.
The appeals court action officially rejected Madigan’s request for a rehearing by the full court, but the denial came with a stinging dissent from four of the nine members of the appeals court who reviewed the matter. The original order came down from a three-member panel that also had a split vote. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
“Man, these state bureaucrats do not like being told to follow the Constitution.”
They won’t.
They are liberals.
And the Holder-felon’s “Just Us” dept will look the other way.
Wanna bet?
Not me, Coyote Dude!
Kinda called it on this one, but it wasn’t hard to foresee since it is the Illinois way. Stall, obfuscate, ask for more hearings, rinse, repeat as needed until the deadline has passed. Then act surprised that nothing has been done and begin the process again while asking for more time. Over and over and over. They act like kids. Ignore it long enough and it goes away or everyone forgets. Don’t think this one will go away.
They have to disarm us all so that they can steal our food to give to Obama’s Zombies.
“The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether .. the individual right to keep and bear arms at home under the Second Amendment extends beyond the home,” Hamilton wrote.
This is liberalism writ large: the belief that a group of intellectual elites decide what is or isn't a right. That is a fundamental duty of American citizens and the entire purpose of unalienable rights. They cannot be sold or arbitrated away.
Second, in keeping with the liberal approach to thinking he ignores the facts before him. The Right to Keep and Bear arms - who bears arms within their own home? It's a nonsense argument made out of desperation. The legal origins and precedents, plus the fact that concealed carry as well as open carry in sum Constitutional Carry works in those states in which it is now "legal" prove as much.
Hamilton’s dissent also noted the ruling that called for Illinois to allow concealed carry is the “first decision by a federal court of appeals striking down legislation restricting the carrying of arms in public.”
I don't know if this is the first decision, but it is a decision most certainly in keeping with original intent of the 2nd as well as previous SC decisions. Illinois law is too restrictive. It is the last state that completely doesn't allow any type of firearm carrying outside the home. So zero rights are a nonstarter. Does Hamilton honestly think that zero gun rights outside the home are acceptable?
He wrote that three major points are worthy of consideration by the full appellate court rather than simply the three-member panel:
*Whether to extend the right to bear arms outside the home and into the public sphere, a matter that “presents issues very different from those involved in the home itself, which is all the Supreme Court decided” in a case currently viewed as the law of the land.
Again, the SC cannot extend or limit Constitutional Rights. His thinking ignores the clear wording of the 10th Amendment.
*How to handle what the panel did not decide. The three-member panel left Illinois a “good deal of constitutional room for reasonable public safety measures concerning public carrying of firearms.”
That's not up to the courts at all. The ball is in the hands of the IL legislature and other state legislatures. NYs new firearm law will most certainly come up for review and barring an extra liberal vote will be struck down.
*How to proceed in future decisions about laws that are more narrowly tailored and any state interests that justify some restrictions on rights.
Narrowly tailored laws already exist in other states. Again, this isn't a court issue, but a legislative one.
“Where the law is genuinely in doubt, as it is likely to remain for some time under the Second Amendment, a trial court can do a great service by ensuring the development of a thorough and complete record that provides a reliable, accurate factual foundation for constitutional adjudication,” Hamilton wrote. “The federal courts are likely to do a better job of constitutional adjudication if our considerations are based on reliable facts rather than hypothesized and assumed facts.”
Hamilton is way behind the curve here. The SA is coming into clearer and clearer focus. When a plurality of sitting Chicago Aldermen accept the concept of "good" guns it's over and we're very close. The reliable facts already exist in thousands of other cases and incidents across the other 49 states. What else will another trial gain in facts?
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Beat me to it, Jacquerie. Even the Illinois Constitution is clear. “the right if INDIVIDUAL citizens to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed. In this context “police power” means something like “Sir, I’m going to ask you to give me your firearm while I investigate...” whatever it is. This should be followed immediately by something like “Unless if find a reason to arrest you i will return this to you when you leave. Fair enough?”
“Police power” is not Legislative power.
What legal nonsense.
Madigan is suggesting that the framework offered by the DISSENTING judges are the guidelines for a Constitutionally acceptable law in Illinois. Without having read the original Posner decision, I would hazard a guess that this "framework" is not going to be acceptable.
The idea that the government can decide whether one has good cause to exercise a right is laughable. Even the People's Republik of Kalifornia typically justified its infringements in court by being able to claim that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. Since the Heller and McDonald decisions, that is no longer true.
At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to“carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2nd ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford).When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion)(quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.
Lets see what Ginsburg says when it gets to the Supreme Court.
You’re welcome and thanks for all your efforts. We need to be eternally vigilant and count on one another. We’re up against it and hard.
Narrowly applied it would mean only upon action by the police, for instance, disarming you during an investigation, but only temporarily. Instead it’s been broadly interpreted to mean any “police power” the state or locality may have including outright banning.
I wish someone had done a study of the IL constitutional convention with the same depth we have of the 2nd Amendment. We need much better legal scholarship at the state level. We need 50 Stephen P. Halbrooks.
“Police power” is legislative power.
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=police&use1913=on&use1828=on
Although I agree with you and your interpretation I’d like to see the debate minutes and contemporaneous accounts of the proceedings to fully understand what was meant. I believe it was the intent to use the 1828 definition as opposed to the 1913 definition and the one most commonly understood in modern times to be simply law enforcement.
The word clearly included legislative power at the time and is founded in US Constitutional law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power
Here’s a little history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution#History
Clearly, though, a right that can be so constrained by a state’s “police power” as to be zeroed out is an affront to the IL constitution itself, let alone the US Constitution. It cannot stand stronger and improved legal scrutiny.
More interesting is Article 12 http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con12.htm
That passage might be very useful in determining the types of arms limited by the “police power”. I’ve not heard it used in IL, yet. If every able bodied person is a part of the militia when do we get trained and armed?
Plus, the original IL constitution wasn’t voted on by the people of the state, but simply ratified by the conventioneers. http://books.google.com/books?id=Qw4lAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA326&vq=Dement&dq=JOhn+Dement+Black+Hawk#v=onepage&q=Dement&f=false
Any day Lisa Madigan gets rebuked is a good day.
Unfortunately, you are incorrect. In constitutional law lingo, "police power" refers to the power of state and local legislatvie bodies to pass laws that are rationaly related to the preservation or promotion of public health, safety, or welfare.
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.