Mtn to dismiss denied in Illinois FOID card case
The district court has denied the State's motion to dismiss in Mishaga v. Monken, which challenges Illinois' requirement of an FOID card to possess a firearm, while at the same time making nonresidents ineligible to obtain such a card.
What I find interesting is that the judge suggests the parties should at some point argue whether there is a difference between possession in one's own home (Heller and McDonald) and possession while staying at someone else's home. I find that interesting because only a few years ago a right to arms challenge would have been laughed off, while today judges are treating it as something quite interesting -- "Can I make new law here? Is there some issue that I can be the first to explore?" When I went to law school in the 70s the rest of the Bill of Rights had some hot issues -- defamation, search and seizure, pornography, Miranda's application, 14th Amendment and the question of "State action." Today, they're all settled by thirty years of precedent. Not true of the right to arms!
Why does it necessarily have to be someone else's home? If I'm staying in Illinois on extended business I'm in my hotel or extended stay apartment.
Posted by: RFarmer at November 23, 2010 08:33 PM
Nothing is ever settled by precedent. The courts do what they damn well please. They pick and choose precedent or make their own new precedent.
One can cite numerous cases from the 19th century that should have been precedent for the 20th.
I know that the judges have crystal "balls" and that give them the ability to "see between the lines" of the Constitution where the rest of us peons cannot.
Posted by: fwb at November 24, 2010 09:36 AM