Illinois Supreme Court Rules Right to Keep and Bear Arms Extends Outside the Home

[leewongfei]

I hope this isnt a dupe. I did search
BREAKING: Illinois Supreme Court Rules Right to Keep and Bear Arms Extends Outside the Home | The Truth About Guns

 

[Rockrivr1]

Excellent. Unfortunately though Chicago will look and find a way to delay or circumvent the ruling like they always do.

 

[taz-2005]

It's certainly been a string of good news in the Land of Lincoln from CCW, Chicago having to dismantle its gun registry and now this. Rahm Emanuel must be apoplectic.

 

[xcom]

No one want to be overturned by the Supremes. Heller and McD are pretty clear to all but the most partisan anti.

 

[Palladin]

nice

 

[7OGlock]

No one but California, New York and New Jersey want to be overturned by the Supremes. Heller and McD are pretty clear to all but the most partisan anti.

Fixed that for ya.

 

[Hoover]

That's a pretty pale group of judges. I thought Illinois was a PROGRESSIVE state?

 

[Cero]

We need some Ma wins!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[AngelKing]

winning

 

[leewongfei]

winning

What have we won?

 

[center442]

What have we won?

The moonbat lottery!

 

[NEVER SURRENDER]

winning

NO......​Winning!!

 

[xero2099]

if some of the Winning spreads to MA then ill be happy

 

[willbdavis]

So if it is now recognized as a right in Illinois, wouldn't it follow that it applies to all Americans in Illinois, regardless of state of residence?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4

 

[davidmcbeth]

So if it is now recognized as a right in Illinois, wouldn't it follow that it applies to all Americans in Illinois, regardless of state of residence?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4

You know to much .. come with us please ....

 

[Coyote33]

Fixed that for ya.

You left out Massachusetts.

 

[terraformer]

So, there were two wins in the Ill Sp. Ct. today. Check out this second one...
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2013/113867.pdf

It is stunning. It was the first court decision to go against the lautenberg amendment.


BTW: A link to the first decision is here.
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2013/112116.pdf

 

[7OGlock]

You left out Massachusetts.

I'm stuck here for now, so, I need to maintain some wishful thinking on that one...

 

[jar]

So, there were two wins in the Ill Sp. Ct. today. Check out this second one...
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2013/113867.pdf

It is stunning. It was the first court decision to go against the lautenberg amendment.


BTW: A link to the first decision is here.
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2013/112116.pdf

Wait, an intermediate state court held 922(g)(9) unconstitutional? How can a state court strike down a federal statute?

That's a really long opinion that'll take me a while to digest. I'm curious how the IL situation compares to the mess that is MA FLRB relief.

 

[terraformer]

It was the state supreme court, not an intermediate appellate court. And they didn't actually strike down 922(g)(9) but they did hold that it was unconstitutional and directed that the state issue an FOID, stating this act of issuing the FOID served as a restoration of rights as per Carron and Logan. It's an absolute brilliant piece of lawyering by the court.

But seriously, it's still got a lot of smart people scratching their heads. No one is sure if this will stick, but it looks good thus far.

BTW: For those who care, this won't work in MA. Because MA doesn't remove ones voting rights upon entering jail, there is no second "right" restored in MA beyond the 2A in the FLRB appeal. And this only worked for this guy because he actually served x number of days in jail as part of a sentence. Had he not, this would not have worked out as he would not have lost the requisite second right in order to satisfy Logan.

 

[BigDaddyAl]

Wait, an intermediate state court held 922(g)(9) unconstitutional? How can a state court strike down a federal statute?

It was the state supreme court, not an intermediate appellate court. And they didn't actually strike down 922(g)(9) but they did hold that it was unconstitutional and directed that the state issue an FOID, stating this act of issuing the FOID served as a restoration of rights as per Carron and Logan. It's an absolute brilliant piece of lawyering by the court.

I think jar's question was referring to the first paragraph of the opinion:

This appeal comes to us pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 302(a) (Ill. S. Ct. R. 302(a) (eff. Oct. 4, 2011)), the circuit court of Adams County having held section 922(g)(9) of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) (2006)), unconstitutional as applied to Jerry W. Coram.

Most state courts are courts of general jurisdiction, meaning they can hear many types of cases involving federal law. Here is a good summary of state court jurisdiction over federal cases, but this really sums most of it up:

In determining whether state courts are allowed to entertain jurisdiction over federally created causes of action, the Supreme Court has applied a presumption of concurrency. Under this presumption, state courts may exercise jurisdiction over federally created causes of action as long as Congress has not explicitly or implicitly made federal court jurisdiction exclusive.

 

[terraformer]

I think jar's question was referring to the first paragraph of the opinion:



Most state courts are courts of general jurisdiction, meaning they can hear many types of cases involving federal law. Here is a good summary of state court jurisdiction over federal cases, but this really sums most of it up:

OK, I wasn't thinking about the procedural aspects of jurisdiction when I answered that. I was focused more on the effect the case has on enforcement of §922(g)(9), which is zero/zilch/nada but once this case is in front of CA7, it's clear §922(g)(9) will fall in many contexts.

 

[davidmcbeth]

The supreme ct side stepped the constitutionality query entirely ... and ruled on state law grounds.