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 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Pretty lame.... | Main | Handgun rationing dies off in Virginia »

Appeal in Moore v. Madigan (Ill ban on carrying)

Posted by David Hardy · 6 February 2012 09:56 AM

No Lawyers, Only Guns and Money, has the story. The case challenges Illinois' effective ban on all carrying of handguns. The trial court dismissed the case, with some extremely sloppy reasoning (along the lines of "McDonald just dealt with possession in the home, so anything beyond that is outside the right to arms" and "rights are not unlimited, this is a limitation, therefore it is valid" and even "I think plaintiff will lose at trial, so I dismiss his case right now."

A notice of appeal was filed within hours, so we can hopefully look forward to another stunning Seventh Circuit ruling.

· Chicago aftermath

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Rob Morse | February 6, 2012 9:18 PM | Reply

"Stunning"? The seventh will concur as they did in McDonald since the SCOTUS could only apply Heller to the home. The second amendment foundation will appeal, and the appeal may, or may not get taken up.

No?

Don Gwinn | February 9, 2012 11:10 PM | Reply

We shall see. The 7th has done some interesting things in these cases. In McDonald, they moved the case along surprisingly quickly when they could have delayed and delayed.

And in the Ezell case (link removed to make the spam filter relax, but you can Google "Ezell v. Chicago" and it'll bring up David's posts on the case.)

.... the 7th gave the district court several good licks upside the head for its reason-free reasoning, not just overturning it but essentially chastising the lower court in the case that established that, yes, the 2nd Amendment is analogous to the 1st Amendment and firing ranges can no more be prohibited completely by a municipality than bookstores could be.

Given that history, it's hard to know for sure how the 7th will rule on this . . . and there's another RTC case, nearly identical but with an even more sympathetic plaintiff, "at the judgment stage" (I don't really know what that means, but a lawyer said it and it sounded like something I shouldn't leave out) in the southern district in Illinois.

Interesting times.

Leave a comment