Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Support for gun control plummets | Main | Interesting ruling »

Mtn to dismiss denied in Illinois FOID card case

Posted by David Hardy · 23 November 2010 06:30 PM

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!

· Chicago aftermath

2 Comments | Leave a comment

RFarmer | November 23, 2010 8:33 PM | Reply

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.

fwb | November 24, 2010 9:36 AM | Reply

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.

Leave a comment