This evening, President Speed, Surprise and Violence of Action will announce his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Trump’s nominee will be gun rights guy or gal. If we’re lucky, it might even be a judge who reckons the “shall not be infringed” part of the Second Amendment means “shall not be infringed.” We shall see. What we won’t see for a while: which Second Amendment case or cases the newly-constituted Supreme Court will hear.
There are three main areas of firearms law the Court may choose to address: the right to bear arms outside the home (e.g., New Jersey’s prohibitive “shall issue” permitting system), the right to keep and bear certain items (e.g., “assault rifles” and “high-capacity magazines”) and a state’s ability to regulate firearms generally (e.g., California’s handgun roster). Which right would you like the Court to tackle first?
The one that finds states banning sales of guns based on certain features unconstitutional. You know, the ones with the shoulder thingy that goes up.
That would be a solid one. The circuit split on the requirement for “good cause” for carry would be at the top of my list. But the Court wouldn’t take that, even before Scalia died if I recall correctly. Kennedy would still be a wild card, and I’m less than sure regarding Roberts for that matter. Swap out Ginsberg for a justice who rules based on the law rather than personal ideology, and we’d be getting somewhere.
Don’t get me wrong, if it comes to a decision, I’ll take Trump’s pick over anyone Hillary would have picked.
The Skipper and Gilligan really need to take Kennedy and the old broads on a 3hr cruise.
It will take years for some of these cases to get to the supreme court. Ginsburg turns 84 in under two months. Kennedy is 80. Breyer is 78. Chances are good Trump will appoint replacements for at least two of them, maybe even all three.
With any luck, yes, but we’ll have to see how things play out with the nomination of Scalia’s replacement. There’s a chance that Mitch “The Bitch” McConnell will not employ the simple majority vote and instead try to get some Dems on board to get to the standard 60 votes for a SCOTUS nominee. Doing that will put things in jeopardy meaning that Trump would have to pick a more centrist justice in the future.
Plus, there’s no guarantee that the Dems won’t take back the Senate in 2018.
That’s the one that impacts me the most personally. Of course, striking down the CT AWB would probably result in dire financial consequences for me.
I think living in CT is what’s causing that. What’s your rent for your 2 bedroom apartment? $1500 a month? Yeah…
In all seriousness, I don’t think you’ll see such a SCOTUS decision for years to come. The bottom line for the Supreme Court is that we have enough conservative justices on the bench to keep things from getting worse.
Any law that infringes on the rights of those not engaging in either continual violent or criminal behavior. The type of arm is immaterial.
Right outside the home has the dim possibility of a political solution. I’d say state regulations on possession are far more important to address.
None. We still need to replace one more justice to get anywhere meaningful.
Maybe two new justices or even three. Remember that the court denied cert in Friedman v. Highland Park, an “assault” weapons ban cum magazine capacity restriction case, which had an extraordinarily well-written brief filed with SCOTUS.
Justices Thomas and Scalia were presumably the only ones willing to take the case. Roberts, Alito and Kennedy remained conspicuously silent on Clarence Thomas’ dissent.
However, it can’t really hurt to start a new “assault” weapons case now in the lower courts, given how much time the case would need to climb to SCOTUS after years. E.g. Peruta v. San Diego County was initially filed in October 2009 and has only now matured to the point where SCOTUS is (surely) ready to deny certiorari.
The really hard part of any SCOTUS-oriented challenge to an “assault” weapons ban will be the design and manufacturing of a split of authority between circuits. Plaintiffs would somehow have to get one or more circuit judges to rule against an AWB.
In case such a split-creating decision is not handed down, the only remaining way to get SCOTUS’ to consider such a case would be to convince at least four justices that the appelate court’s decision is in too obvious a state of disrespect of Heller (think Caetano) that there is no choice but to grant certiorari.
Which would take at least two additional two justices besides the one Pres. Trump is going to nominate in a few hours’ time from now.
We’ve come full circle, I guess. 🙂
Julius- what happened with the Friedman v. Highland Park “assault weapons” case is that ISRA (IL state rifle association, the state tumor of NRA) jumped the gun and did not coordinate with the other gun groups like SAF, etc. before filing suit.
When Illinois’ concealed carry bill passed in July 2013, there was a ten day sunset window for municipalities that wished to pass a local gun ban. After that such regs became the exclusive province of state lawmakers. ISRA could have just left well enough alone and called it a win, but they wanted to build their rep.
Maybe about four towns hustled to pass a ban, and Highland Park was one of them. ISRA was feeling their oats after getting their fantastic “NRA backed” carry bill passed, with such “accomplishments” as criminal penalties for all violations, a public transit ban, plus Duty to Inform. But those only affect black people in Chicago, so who cares?
After doing NOTHING to promote concealed carry for at least forty years, “executive director” Richard Pearson and the rest of the insane clown posse down home in Chatsworth decided to step into the ring with the big boys, and promptly flopped on their faces. That’s about all ISRA is good at, losing.
Pearson had a small part in conning Otis McDonald into signing on to Alan Gura’s lawsuit against the city of Chicago, so now he thinks that concealed carry in Illinois was his idea all along. Fifteen years ago when I asked him what he was going to do to advance concealed carry in Illinois, he told me, “It’s not the right time.”
You really cannot make this stuff up. Maybe the long term use of Bryl Cream in Richard’s hair caused brain damage.
Shall [Not] Issue permits. I’m all for carry permits and national reciprocity, but if you’re legally able to own a gun, you should be issued a permit to carry as long as you demonstrate basic safe handling and usage. The decision to issue a permit should not be left to someone’s arbitrary descretion.
Why don’t we just train people in high school and only take away their right to carry if currently under parole or any other direct court supervision.
Works for me! If everyone was exposed to shooting earlier, a lot more would get into it. And then there would be a lot fewer liberal converts once they got to college. Or at least a lot more liberals who would help stamp out the anti-gun agenda.
Cjstl,
That word “but” means you are NOT “all for carry permits and national reciprocity”. Your statement is no different than me saying, “I am all for ice cream, but the only ice cream that we should allow is melted mint chocolate chip.” Clearly, I am not “all for ice cream” if I only want to allow melted mint chocolate chip.
When a person has to demonstrate “basic safe handling and usage” in order to obtain a carry permit, the decision to issue a permit IS left to someone’s arbitrary discretion — their arbitrary notion of “basic safe handling and usage” as well as their arbitrary decision as to whether or not you actually demonstrated “basic safe handling and usage”.
I want everyone to have as much training as they can acquire. What I do not want is government mandated training and determination of who does or does not demonstrate basic safe handling and usage.
It’s only arbitrary if the law is not clearly defined. Do they know the rules? Can they hit a body sized target from 10/15/20 feet? Then stamp that damn paper and issue the permit. Nothing arbitrary about that. Certainly not like a sheriff with a political agenda deciding whether John Doe really needs to carry a gun.
Do the Supreme Court get to pick & choose or do cases have to get to them via various other courts etc?
My wish would be for the SC Justices to strictly apply the Constitution as written (and as intended by the framers) to all of their judgments and not to try to make it fit any of their prejudices via convoluted ‘legalese’.
Having said that, they need to take a look at the banning of firearms based upon arbitrary features (including action type, barrel length, stocks/pistol grips, magazine types & capacities etc etc). This would benefit the residents of many states (California, Mass, NJ, CT etc etc etc) where their freedoms are currently being infringed.
While they’re at it they can rule that the NFA is unconstitutional, I want a suppressed SBR without a lot of paperwork hassles & costs!!!!
For all practical purposes, there is no right to Supreme Court review, and thus the court picks and chooses three or four hundred cases each year out of the thousands of petitions it receives. It takes five votes out of nine for a case to be taken for consideration.
SCOTUS grants certiorari in about 80 cases per year (out of 7,000-8,000 briefs filed per term). It takes the Ayes of four justices for a case to go forward.
Sort of both. Without getting too much into the weeds, the way it works is that cases will work their way through the lower courts, and some of they will make appeals to the Supreme Court. For each case, the Court will decide whether to not to hear the case by issuing a Writ of Certiori, which is also referred to as granting cert. The Supreme Court is the only court in the country that has discretion about whether it can hear a case referred to it.
There are some important things keep in mind when thinking about the cases the Supreme Court will hear. First is that Supreme Court precedents will often last for decades before they are overturned, if they are overturned at all. Second, decisions by lower courts stand if cert is denied, but it isn’t binding precedent across the country that settles a Constitutional question going forward. The issue remains up in the air.
Granting cert requires the agreement of four justices. There are a lot of strategic considerations around granting cert, and a lot of times justices seem to vote in ways that seem counter to what one would expect. Scalia voted against cert in gun rights cases because he wasn’t sure he had the votes with him to prevail. It’s often better not to hear a case at all, than to hear a case and allow for the possibility of a bad precedent.
Call your senators and tell them to ask about the nominee about US v. Miller (and Wickard v. Filburn)
U.S. v.Miller is a hoot! Interesting to see F.D.R.’s lawyers arguing that weapons suitable for military use wear the ones protected by the 2A for us citizens.
The SC can directly take certain cases, without lower courts being involved. However, second amendment issues must go up through the appellate system. The SC annually receives numerous requests for appearance, but the justices must determine how many, which type and when the cases will be heard. Most appeals are denied, either outright, or by silence. The question of which case the public (TTAG) would prefer is of not interest to any of the courts. Uppermost in our minds must be the fact that a single justice of the SC cannot steer the ship. Having one or two “proper” justices on the SC will not give rise to a ruling that the second amendment is absolute, or even near-absolute. If we had six or seven “proper” justices on the SC, there is no promise that the SC would rule in “our favor” over any matter. But look what we have come to….we are attempting to use the courts to give us what the legislature will not. Sounds a whole lot like the leftists who used the courts to thwart congress all these many years. The issue of unlimited gun rights is a matter for the national legislature, where we seem to have little influence. “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars; but in ourselves,….”
“The issue of unlimited gun rights is a matter for the national legislature,”
Or, even better, the Constitution! Maybe we could pass an Amendment! We could call it “The Second Amendment”! Isn’t that a great idea? Unfortunately we already have that, and *IT* is ignored, why would something passed by the “national legislature” fare any better?
“…why would something passed by the “national legislature” fare any better?”
Think about it. Think about it really hard.
I think he was being sarcastic. You would think that no additional legislation to protect an amendment would be necessary.
Think about it….the second amendment, as written, is plain enough to some, but archaic wording isn’t translating into hip-hop. We have three alternatives: a) deal with what has been wrought – get over it; b) amend the second amendment to be in simple, current language; c) national legislation that declares RTKBA inviolable, all current restrictions removed, and places gun possession cases outside the jurisdiction of the courts. The last option is rarely considered. Pushing legislators to do something so definitive runs counter to all political wisdom (and survival). Taking jurisdiction over gun ownership out of the courts also means the next time control of congress shifts, the majority must risk attempting to overturn the legislation.
If legislation cannot resolve the matter, the courts rule, and not the people. Nothing in the writings of the founders indicates anyone intended, anticipated, encouraged or wanted a nation ruled by judicial fiat.
“Good cause” or as in New Jersey “justifiable need” is the one to tackle next. If this is left to stand the entire country will loose their ability to carry and poses period. If a state government is allowed to determine who has “cause or need” then we are all lost. After all you don’t have a “need to vote” I’m sure you don’t have “good cause to free speech”.
In the text, NJ is referred to as “shall issue”. I don’t think so.
my ex had some “loose poses.”
Bearing arms outside the home.
In NJ it’s worse than just not being able to daily carry- the legality of a fuel or food stop on your way to the range is at a judge’s discretion. Want to pick up a buddy? Watch out, might be illegal. Broke down on the side of the road with your stuff locked up properly in the trunk? Rolling the dice, pal.
+1. Transport laws are one of the most insidious 2nd Amendment infringements out there. To my knowledge NJ may be the only state that has them on the books, or at least ones THAT terrible.
We can cure that without involving SCOTUS.
Make the firearms owner’s protection act have some real, painful, expensive teeth to it for the state and the individual cops personally involved in violating the letter and the spirit of the 2A so that they fear violating the 2A.
Bankrupt the jurisdiction and toss the arresting officer(s) in state prison for a mandatory one year sentence with no parole for violating it…
I’d rather see yet another new 2nd amendment respecting judge added in a ‘liberal’s’ place before taking up anything to profound. I don’t trust Kennedy or Roberts.
You’re absolutely right. The fact is that Kennedy, Breyer, and Ginsburg are in their upper 70s or older, so the possibility that one of the three of them needing to be replaced in the next four years is at least moderate. I would put the chances of a replacement in the next eight years as high. So if Trump is reelected, there’s a very good chance that he may appoint at least one additional justice, if not two or three more.
At that point, those should be reliable votes on Second Amendment cases, and I would be very comfortable any they decided to hear at that time.
Consider, carefully, what you deem “reliable”. Self-frustration may be the worst kind.
Ginsburg is 83, Breyer 78, Kennedy 80. I don’t wish any of them ill, but I do think they should go on some cruises or something. No point in working yourself to death:-)
or maybe a hunting trip…
I would like to see carry outside the home taken up, as it is a fundamental issue and the next step beyond Heller. The Heller court implied that there is such a right, but the liberal courts have said that if that’s what the court meant, they will not find any such right until the Supremes say so explicitly. There are two issues that need to be considered: a) the existence of a right, and b) the standard of review to be applied in such questions. The Supremes implied that a lesser than strict scrutiny analysis may apply, and the liberal courts have run with this, applying what they call is “intermediate scrutiny” but which is no more than rational basis review–if the State says that a law is needed in the public interest, even if there are no facts to support it, the law is GTG. This is atrocious, and is no more than the “sliding scale” analysis that one of the dissenters in Heller would have applied, and which analysis was expressly rejected by the majority.
The one case that is currently pending a request for review is Peruta v. Gore, a case in which plaintiffs contend that there is a right to carry outside the home “in some manner,” i.e., concealed or openly, and if one is banned, the State must allow the other. The Ninth Circuit panel agreed with plaintiffs, but an en banc panel overruled that decision, concluding that there is no right to carry a concealed weapon–and refused to consider the question as to whether that means there is a right to open carry. As things stand now, California basically bans the open carrying of any firearm, loaded or unloaded, in any incorporated city or town, i.e., the primary place you’d want to have one.
There is no case currently anywhere near Supreme Court review concerning the California Roster or any “features” or assault weapons ban. The last the latter came up for review in the Highland Park case, the Supreme curt declined to take the case. I think that it is more likely that a carry case will be taken up than in individual firearms case.
Carry outside the home and toss the state a state’s rights scrap and allow them to choose the mode of carry, as long as it *allows* carry outside the home…
The new judge will take Scalia’s place and Scalia couldn’t even get Heller without severely watering down his decision.
As long as Kennedy is the deciding vote on guns it’s going to be half-measures, at best.
One of the common beliefs of federal judges (and maybe state level, also) is that decisions should not only interpret the law as written, but also consider the impact of ruling (which is actually a political, not judicial, matter). it is the consideration for the impact that places judges squarely in the political realm. The only way to consider “impact” of rulings is through the filter of social and political beliefs. Jurists are concerned they be looked at by historians as being pious, compassionate, enlightened and generally swell guys. This is the way of politics. Justices should be absolutely uncaring about the social or historical effect of rulings. But such is not so, and not likely to be so. Thus, “watered down” rulings and opinions will continue to be the common denominator. That, or screamingly supportive of disintegration of society for the good of same. History is not riddled with people of substance declaring, “This I will not tolerate !”, and withstanding the hurricane of criticism of lesser types.
” History is not riddled with people of substance declaring, “This I will not tolerate !”, and withstanding the hurricane of criticism of lesser types.”
*Really*? Have you been living under a rock?
I direct your attention to what’s been happening on collage campuses with respect to the concept of ‘tolerance’ across the USA…
I’m missing your intention here.
I mainly want Illinois to be like Indiana. Without me moving there…
Whoever President Trump nominates to the Supreme Court, and whichever 2nd Amendment cases make it to the top Court, it’s important for POTG to watch out for NRA colluding with police unions to sabotage our rights. The pattern of NRA, Inc. has been to sabotage open carry bills, like the bill they derailed in Texas, requiring a concealed carry license to open carry, plus police need no excuse to stop you when carrying. Thanks NRA!
The ultimate goal should be Arizona-style open carry. You’re over twenty-one with no felonies, go ahead and strap up. That’s the type of case we should advance.
Here in Illinois, NRA put almost no money into the state for at least forty years. It was grassroots activists, not NRA, that recruited Chicago black man Otis McDonald as the face man for Alan Gura’s lawsuit against the city of Chicago handgun ban.
When Gura got in front of the Court in record time after filing in 2007, NRA hired insider former Solicitor General Paul Clement to barge into Gura’s suit months before his court date and steal ten minutes from his thirty minute oral argument time in front of SCOTUS. Great work!
NRA was later awarded $1.3 MILLION in legal fees from Chicago. Since the McDonald case, the Borg Cube at NRA HQ has morphed and will promote horrible gun bills in collusion with the anti-gun police unions. Loser bills are winners-for them. Simple bills that promote freedom for the average gun owner do not furnish job security for NRA lawyers and lobbyists.
NRA, Inc. set up and sold out Otis McDonald in Illinois’ carry bill, and they will sell out every one of us if they think they can get away with it.
You seem to forget that we could’ve ended up much worse off than our current carry bill. Judge Posner didn’t say the legislature had to pass a “shall-issue” carry bill. The ruling basically just said that the outright ban on carrying in public was unconstitutional.
We could’ve easily ended up with a bullshit “may issue after providing just cause” type of bill.
So feel free to think what you want about our current bill… personally, I’ve been carrying since the day licenses first started arriving in the mail, and I rarely have to disarm for one of the GFZ signs.
Demo man copped and pasted this into the comments on a number of websites, I truly doubt that he will reply to anyone.
the replies (“it” does reply) suggest manic wheezing with copious spittle discharge and eyes rolling back violently into their sockets. some entertainment value is present.
it’s the initial posts that are so damn dumb.
“need to inform! need to inform!”
Demo man, please go back and edit your post. It’s incomplete. I read through the entire thing and I didn’t once see the name “Todd Vandermyde” in your post. As such, your post is an incomplete Demo Man post.
marco- Ah, some brain matter with this one! Thanks for the reminder. If you wish to research the criminal record of the NRA state contract lobbyist, utilize his real name of Donald Todd Vandermyde.
In Illinois we do not technically have a “DMV” the Secretary of State issues driver’s licenses, as well as business licenses. If you go to Illinois Sec. of State Jesse White’s excellent (for government work) cyberdriveillinois dot com official website, you can search “lobbyist activities” and find the records for “DTV associates.”
You may find that Vandermyde changed the name of his registered lobbying front corporation in 2011, after his former boss William Dugan was convicted by Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in 2010.
Vandermyde used to be a Joe Six-Pack line member of the Intl. Union of Operating Engineers local 150 in Countryside, IL, but elbowed his way into a job as a mouthpiece, perhaps somewhat like Jimmy Hoffa did with the Teamsters union that funded construction for organized crime.
Deliberately passing a shit concealed carry bill that requires “work” to “fix” in the future would be similar to constructing a substandard road, which falls apart too soon and has to be repaved in five years (at taxpayer expense) instead of ten because it’s crumbling apart. This is how Vandermyde learned his “trade.”
Be heartened to know that NRA hires fine lobbyists like Todd Vandermyde who worked directly for a man like William Dugan that was taken down by the FBI & U.S. Attorney.
Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham only hire the worst people they can find, and Magnum, P.I., conducts a cursory credit check, like what employers did in 1972. He’s a contract lobbyist paid by 1099, so NRA/ILA doesn’t really care what he does anyway, they just need to claim a body in Illinois for tax purposes.
I don’t care which one. I just hope RBG the tyrant in a black robe can’t fulfill her duties and has to be replaced sometime within the next couple years. That would be a good Birthday/Christmas/Hanukkah gift.
They shouldn’t take any until they have a 6-3 majority. That traitor Kennedy can not be trusted when it comes to self defense rights.
While not technically a 2nd amendment issue….. I believe the fisrt thing they should look at is redefining liberalism as a mental disorder…. that way those that are afflicted with this horrible disorder can be properly treated and become productive members of society.
I want to see the Supreme Court address the issue of state and/or federal legislation whose sole intent is the suppression of the free exercise of Second Amendment rights by law abiding citizens. When the Supreme Court imposes strict scrutiny on all Second Amendment cases I will be satisfied.
Peruta.
Any law that curtails a person’s right of self defense outside the home is an abomination.
My rights do not end once I walk out of my front door.
Ditto this.
I wish they could take it together with any case involving one state arresting someone legal to carry in another state, and give a combined ruling saying that anyone allowed to carry a gun in their own state may not only carry it outside the home, but ANYWHERE outside the home, regardless of state lines — no paperwork needed.
Seems pretty clear Peruta offers nothing new and different from Heller. Scalia penned that the second amendment does not include the right to any type of weapon available, anywhere, anytime. And that the RTKBA does not extend to concealed carry (not a direct quote). The inclusion of the propriety of “reasonable restrictions” on gun possession seems the nail in the coffin. The only things new would be specifically declaring that open carry is the right protected by the second amendment, and Peruta does not raise that issue (and SC is loath to reach to a broader ruling on RTKBA that the second amendment is absolute. That declaration must await a case regarding whether or not “reasonable restrictionds” are, themselves, prohibited infringements. Nothing in the pipeline comes near that. The case to fear is one that declares open carry the un-infringeable right, meaning states can end concealed carry without concern of a constitutional challenge.
Go after any/all of the Communist Social Republic of California state laws that you can. Once those fall, the rest will drop like dominoes (except for, maybe, the Socialist Democratic State of New York).
Most important to me are NICS, 4473, and FFL
Those aren’t going anywhere except by congressional action. The Court has already acknowledged that certain restrictions pass constitutional muster.
Abiding by precedents is extremely important and overturning them shouldn’t be taken lightly. Otherwise the Supreme Court just becomes a sort of Super Senate whereby the whim of the day holds sway.
You are making a distinction without a difference. SC is already a super-senate, and many here want it to act so regarding gun rights (much as the Left does for just about everything). Super-senate for other issues? Probably not so much.
No, I’m making a case for restoration of constitutional principles, starting with constitutional institutions. “But….but….but the liberals did it, too!!!!” will not be a satisfactory excuse for having willfully participated in the demise of America when America 2.0 comes about.
If we adopt the hated tactics of the Left, what is the difference between? Our morals are superior? If ends justify the means (not saying no, here), then we forfeit complaining about the methods used by the Left. In which case, we need pro-gun, pro-constitution, pro-life demonstrations at every moment of disappointment. We need to block streets, trash businesses, mount massive trash-talk attacks on social media, lie about facts, and all the other things. If we don’t take every action possible, we have no excuse “…for having willfully participated in the demise of America when America 2.0 comes about.”
If Trump appoints either Neil Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman, who supposedly are the two finalists, then he will have demonstrated he’s serious and smart about SCOTUS nominees.
Once we have the ball, I’d rather run out the clock on Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer, and get replacements yielding a more solid majority. In the meantime, I don’t want to risk a Roberts or Kennedy screw-up on a big case. Those two cannot be trusted in the Big Game. So I’d hope for no major 2A cases in the near term.
It could well be that no viable 2A cases arrive at SCOTUS before the end of Pres. Trump’s first term. Heller took (preparations and vetting of plaintiffs included) at least six years before the decision was handed down. In the case of Peruta v. San Diego County, it’s going to be a full eight years or more before SCOTUS’ final denial of certiorari. The Supreme Court rarely takes 2nd Amendment cases. Should there actually be one in the not-so-immediate future (one that begins its long journey through the State and Federal District Courts, say, today), it could well be that it won’t be decided by the Nine until the end of a hypothetical second Trump term. And until then, it’s not so unlikely that a few more of the current justices will have been replaced.
The stars align slowly, but right now, it looks like they actually could align. And that is the important thing, even if it takes the better part of the next decade.
The reason cert hasn’t been granted since MacDonald is neither side could be sure of the outcome and were unwilling to risk setting unfavorable precedents. That won’t change with Scalia’s replacement, by Gorsuch, it appears at the moment.
If one of Ginsburg, Kennedy, or Breyer leave the bench during a Trump or other Republican administration, and are replaced with a justice in the mold of Scalia, then we will likely see much more movement on Second Amendment cases. The more strategic questions will get pushed to the background, and instead, it will be more about whether the issues presented in the case are questions the justices feel they need to answer.
Carlos- regarding cert in front of the Supreme Court, on January 24, 2017, SCOTUS denied cert in Berron v. Illinois Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board. From the Chicago Tribune:
“The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand an Illinois system of issuing concealed carry permits that gun owners had complained violated their constitutional rights.
The court did not explain its decision, saying only that it would not interfere with the decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backing the state’s requirements for obtaining a concealed-carry license.
Illinois was the last state in the nation to allow concealed carry permits after a 2012 ruling by the same appeals court that state’s prohibition was unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. State lawmakers enacted the Firearm Concealed Carry Act after that court ruling.
After state officials established a system to handle the applications, gun owners who were denied permits complained that they were given no explanation why they were turned down.”
From what I know of the case, John Berron lives in Skokie, Illinois. He applied for a concealed carry license and a police department made an anonymous objection to his application, which is “legal” under Illinois’ carry act. That’s why the application requires a TEN YEAR address history, so any cop from any jurisdiction where you ever lived can object to your app, like if you had an argument with your neighbor about dog turds on the lawn or whatever.
Berron’s case was filed by Chicago attorney J.D. Obenberger. Obenberger attended the fall 2014 Gun Rights Policy Conference in Rosemont by Chicago O’Hare airport, sponsored by SAF. ISRA (the Illinois state tumor of NRA) had a little secret squirrel huddle at GRPC in a side conference room for lawyers only, which was attended by Obenberger and other Chicago lawyers, in order to rook them into 2nd Amendment cases as a new profit center, after ISRA promotes their shit bills, which produce new classes of plaintiffs, such as John Berron.
That’s how the whole wheel spins, greased by money of course. Neither ISRA nor NRA provided any legal assistance to Obenberger, although he asked ISRA for help. If you’re a good old boy, the police will not object to your app. I could have told him that Richard Pearson is a useless clown who could not punch his way out of a paper bag.
Berron lost, he still doesn’t have a carry license, and the 7th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Chicago basically affirmed that any cop from any jurisdiction in Illinois can deny your 2nd Amendment rights, under the legal “standard” of “preponderance of the evidence” in an anonymous hearing, where you never get to face your accuser. From a legal summary of the case:
“The court upheld the statute’s placing the burden on the state to justify denials, using a preponderance standard, and rejected a challenge to the composition of the concealed carry board.”
“Preponderance of the evidence” is the lowest standard in civil law, the same as Chicago red light camera violations. The Illinois CCLRB is composed of a retired federal judge, two federal agents (cops) three former government lawyers and a shrink. Great work by Todd Vandermyde and carry bill sponsor Brandon Phelps!
This is what happens when you let NRA lobbyists like Todd Vandermyde cut deals with police unions. You will notice to this day clowns and retards from downstate Illinois insisting that “we” have a “shall-issue” bill.
Beware “national reciprocity.” If NRA is involved, you can be sure that they will sell you out and set you up with the police unions that write their bills.
I’m biased but would like to get rid of this handgun roster nonsense. Asides from revolvers there are fewer and fewer semi-auto’s on the roster every year.
Comments are closed.