busy day for the Second Amendment
In Klachaksky, where the Second Circuit upheld the Sullivan Law's vague standards for issuing permits to carry, a petition for certiorari has been filed. That petition is the standard route for getting cases to the US Supreme Court, which can accept or decline them.
In Moore v. Madigan, which struck down the Illinois ban on carrying (open or concealed) without a permit issued on similarly vague grounds, the State has moved for en banc reconsideration, i.e., consideration by all the judges of the circuit, rather than the three-judge panel that heard the appeal.
In the latter case, Brady Center has filed an amicus. Interesting that it agrees that the issues are very important -- which would argue for a motion for cert. down the road, if Illinois is inclined to seek it.
Things are heating up!
Hat tip to Gene Hoffman of CalGuns....
Well I read it, and it seems extremely well done and compelling. But what do I know.
Posted by: Jim at January 9, 2013 02:15 AM
When will the high court decide whether to accept Klachaksky?
Posted by: Jeff at January 9, 2013 06:00 AM
How soon will the 7th Circuit decide whether to hear Moore v. Madigan en banc?
Posted by: Jeff at January 9, 2013 06:05 AM
If the Court had properly read the Constitution, esp the supremacy clause, correctly back in 1833 we wouldn't be having these BS discussions and court cases.
Rawle's A View of the Constitution published in 1825 and 1829 had it correct and clear. The Bill of Rights ALSO binds the states. It wasn't until Marshall reached into his shorts and felt something that the BoR was determined to only bind the feds. That decision was as bogus as they come. The discussion and the straight forward language of the amendments proves this to be true. ONLY the 1st amendment was restricted to Congress. The others bound all governments through the supremacy clause and their own language.
We are so far off from the true Constitution, it's farcical to claim we ever followed the law.
Posted by: fwb at January 10, 2013 09:00 AM
FWB, interesting point, broad language and all, each state ratifying it, supremacy clause and all. It's a pity no one thought of that in Law School when we were slogging through all those SCOTUS cases, but then we were lucky to examine the arguments IN the cases, and so many of them were dissents disguised as concurrences.
Posted by: Windy Wilson at January 11, 2013 04:55 PM
This is my favorite part, which I, for one, do not find compelling:
"The majority’s lack of attention to political factors also shows in its assumption that
Illinois’s being “the only state that maintains a flat ban on carrying ready-to-use guns outside the
home,” suggests that if doing so “were demonstrably superior, one would expect at least one or
two other states to have emulated it.”"
So courts are supposed to issue rulings based on the political factors?
Posted by: Rich Turner at January 13, 2013 07:39 PM