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

« Gun "buyback" in Tucson | Main | Good article on "assault weapons" and hi-cap magazines »

busy day for the Second Amendment

Posted by David Hardy · 8 January 2013 08:46 PM

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....

· Chicago aftermath

6 Comments | Leave a comment

Jim | January 9, 2013 2:15 AM | Reply

Well I read it, and it seems extremely well done and compelling. But what do I know.

Jeff | January 9, 2013 6:00 AM | Reply

When will the high court decide whether to accept Klachaksky?

Jeff | January 9, 2013 6:05 AM | Reply

How soon will the 7th Circuit decide whether to hear Moore v. Madigan en banc?

fwb | January 10, 2013 9:00 AM | Reply

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.

Windy Wilson | January 11, 2013 4:55 PM | Reply

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.

Rich Turner | January 13, 2013 7:39 PM | Reply

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?

Rich

Leave a comment