Illinois Concealed Carry Ruling: Gun Rights Group Files Appeal With U.S. Supreme Court

[ellisonz]

First Posted: 02/ 7/2012 9:27 am Updated: 02/ 7/2012 11:21 am

A gun rights group filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court Monday after a federal judge in Springfield defended Illinois' ban on concealed weapons.

In an opinion issued Friday, U.S. Judge Sue Myerscough said the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to have guns in their home -- not carry them in public, the State Journal-Register reports.

The opinion was issued after several citizens and gun rights groups filed a lawsuit claiming that Illinois is violating the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by prohibiting people from carrying guns in public.

“Plaintiffs argue that the Second Amendment protects a general right to carry guns that includes a right to carry operable guns in public,” Myerscough wrote, according to the Quad-City Times. “However, neither the United States Supreme Court nor any United States Court of Appeals has recognized such a right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/illinois-concealed-carry-_n_1258838.html

Maybe Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Kennedy can help the gun rights movement out...

[rl6214]

1. Maybe they can

Afterall, it is the right to KEEP and BEAR arms

[burf]

2. Before you know it

you can be posting more pictures of checks written pay to the order of another gun rights organization.

[ellisonz]

3. We shall see...

I got the skillz!!!

Also, you might want to either add or delete a quotation mark from your signature line.

[ileus]

4. grabber judge making grabbing decisions...who'd ah thunk it.

I suppose the freedom of speech is also a stay at home right.

[Hoyt]

6. She sounds like a good candidate for next Supreme Court vacancy - reverse those 5/4 decisions

made by the right wing majority.

[rl6214]

52. Can you point out how many supreme court decisions have been reversed when a vacancy is filled?

Not gonna happen even though we know that's all you dream about at night.

[Hoyt]

56. Sure it will. A slightly different case will come along and boom, the Court will rule differently.

In fact, here is a list of 10 cases including "Citizens United."

http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm


I suspect we'll see lots of gun cases in the future -- most of them by some poor, pitiful right winger who feels his "right" to parade around with a gun in public has been infringed.

[DonP]

57. Sure, it was only 74 years between Miller and Heller. Why not just hold your breath?

I'm sure that the entire court is breathlessly waiting for the next gun case, after deciding two of them two years apart.

Their typical pattern is not to grant cert to cases that are similar in nature for several years. That way the apellate and circuits can resolve cases before them using the more recent SCOTUS decisions for as much as a decade or more.

But I do like the idea of you holding your breath waiting for them to reverse. They might speed it up, if only they knew you were upset.

But it was only 74 years between cases before that, so you just keep hoping and fantasizing.

[Hoyt]

58. And, since Miller was overturned controversially -- things will happen sooner. So hold tight

to your guns.

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

[gejohnston]

59. Miller was not over turned

because it decided nothing. Both sides claim Miller as a victory for their side, but it really was a send back to the lower court.

[doc03]

5. Maybe if they had CCW in Illinois the crime rate would go down n/t

[Hoyt]

7. Not likely, but a popular belief among the "gun culture."

[doc03]

8. It has gone down nationally since CCW laws but Illinois is still a

crime hell hole.

[Hoyt]

9. But not because of more guns. Look it up.

[doc03]

10. Link? It can't be proved it is not because of more guns.

[michreject]

16. That's what you said when someone asked about the 2nd Amendment

You stated that it wasn't a civil right.

When several disputed that assertion, you just drove right on by.

Still waiting on that reply.

[ellisonz]

19. Sometimes that's all you can do...

...it's a bit like the City of Detroit.

[Hoyt]

55. There are any number of discussions of the difference.

Look it up.

While I don't really expect most people who feel the need to carry a gun to venture out to understand, here's a good discussion to get you started:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11721025

[krispos42]

11. What's this? I'm in agreement with you?

Hmph. This is unusual, at least in the Gungeon.


"Freakonomics" had a pretty good explanation as to why the crime rate dropped starting in the 90's. Concealed-carry wasn't really on the list.

[Hoyt]

13. Deep down, you know I'm right most of the time.

[oneshooter]

15. You have yet to prove this "pollution" you claim exists.

[Hoyt]

21. Oneshooter, you have guns on the brain. Heck, your user name is all about guns.

You will never accept the truth about this issue. That's sad.

[liberal_biker]

24. Still no answer to the question...n/t

[oneshooter]

74. Don't really expect one. Hoyt cowers in silence whenever

a question is asked that requires thought to reply.

[oneshooter]

39. " I am but one shooter among many" That is how I chose my name.

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. Deep down, we know you're right here most of the time.... n/t

[krispos42]

31. Okay, I'll make a deal with you.

If, after we've achieve an income distribution, national universal single-payer health insurance, and cheap college education similar to Norway... if after we're come to a rational drug-legalization policy and eliminated the prison-industrial complex...

...if at THAT point, our homicide rate is still significantly higher than, say, Norway or England or France, we can try something a bit more drastic than I'm willing to try now regarding gun-control laws.


Every policy I've named would both DECREASE crime and homicide rates WHILE increasing the standard of living, productivity, moral and social fiber, justice and equality under the law, political awareness and participation, and our general security as a nation.

The stuff you generally advocate for MIGHT decrease crime and homicide rates, but would not do ANYTHING else. And the stuff you advocate for is at least as long term as anything I named, while being politically toxic.

[Hoyt]

34. Truthfully, I don't think most people promoting more guns really care about those other issues.

I'm with you 100% on improvements in "income distribution, national universal single-payer health insurance, and cheap college education similar to Norway."

That's why I came to DU. Unfortunately, I stumbled upon the gungeon. I think it was a night when some trolls were here posting a bunch of right wing use of guns to promote hate stuff.

In any event, if we achieved those lofty social goals and more, most people on this forum would just use their "savings" to buy/promote more damn guns.

[Union Scribe]

47. So you stumbled upon it, "Unfortunately," yet never left

Do you even post in other forums? I never see you out there, talking about those other issues.

[Hoyt]

50. You can look up my posts on other issues. I encourage that before making unfounded accusations.

[Union Scribe]

51. It's just odd that someone who

loathes this forum and its inhabitants so much spends all of his time here, instead of spending it talking about the issues he says he came to this site to champion. I'm saying I only see you here. I'm not really interested in digging through pages of Gun forum results in DU's Google search to see if you ever venture out of here, I'm just making the observation that I never see you anywhere else talking about anything else. And that would be fine, except that you do nothing but bash the place and the posters in this group, which naturally rouses my curiosity as to what drives a person to allocate their time in such a way.

[ellisonz]

54. The same could be said about...

...many members of this forum.

Maybe Hoyt just likes debating people he fundamentally disagrees with?

[gejohnston]

60. it is kind of boring

to debate on subjects where everyone agrees on everything. That could be why this is one of the more happening forums.

[ellisonz]

61. Agreed.

It depends on the topic. But yeah, conflict draws people in.

[rl6214]

64. "Maybe Hoyt just likes debating people he fundamentally disagrees with?"

Is that what you call what he does, debating?

[Union Scribe]

71. I think there's a difference

between someone who goes to a group because either

a. they are sympathetic to the majority of that group (I'd have to say the majority of the posters in this group are pro-gun rights)
b. they wish to have an actual exchange about some point or policy

and someone who deeply dislikes the majority's opinions and responds with single lines repeating the same toxic insinuations over and over. I mean, let's be honest. Jpak, you, iverglas, some others, you have something to say. Hoyt posts two things: accusations that fellow DUers are part of a right-wing gun culture who dream about shooting people indiscriminately, and his slogan about "strapping one or two guns in public."

There's no debate there. Anyway, I'm just laying out what I'm thinking. He has as much right to be here as any of us and I don't want anyone thinking I'm saying otherwise. I just, simply, find it odd and welcome him to talk about those other issues he cited, because I bet I could find lots to agree with him about.

[ellisonz]

72. I don't doubt that entirely...

...but I would say that at a certain point the amount of ill-will poisons debate no both sides. The good posters here try to find a middle ground, try to find compromise. The bad one's see no compromise and think they can win the debate or think there's some sort of objective conclusion they can make about the intent of others. I honestly have been treated with more ill-will here than I ever was in two primary seasons at DU. I never posted too much in the Gungeon at DU2 because I didn't have a star for most of the time, but having looked back at some of those threads, it was much more civil when that was the case. I don't think Hoyt is as bad as you say. He's just passionate like everyone else. I think we all need to work harder to not misrepresent others positions on the issues.

[Hoyt]

62. Simple -- indiscriminate promotion of more guns in public is not good for our society.

[rl6214]

65. Indiscriminate?

You mean like how you are able to own one? It may not be good for your society, it's great for ours.

[rl6214]

63. Truthfully, I don't think anyone is promoting "more guns" people are promoting the freedom

to own guns. That's your first mistake.

"In any event, if we achieved those lofty social goals and more, most people on this forum would just use their "savings" to buy/promote more damn guns. "

This isn't a forum, it's a group and what people use their own money "savings" to buy is really none of your business.

[Hoyt]

75. How we deal with lethal weapons in society should be every voters concern.

[rl6214]

78. Yeah, and all those voters are voting in lawmakers to defeat you anti-gun zealots

time after time after time.

[ellisonz]

20. Bookmarked. n/t

[krispos42]

32. There's plenty more to bookmark.

I found the explanation in "Freakonomics" pretty compelling, so much so that I've summarized it previously on DU about this very topic.

Have you read it?

[ellisonz]

33. Nope.

But I might have to do some homework now

[rl6214]

53. OF course you can show us how many went up when concealed carry was enacted?

Right?

Contrary to what you anti-gun zealots believe, crime rates do not go up with the passing of concealed carry laws.

[Atypical Liberal]

12. It's inevitable. Illinois will fall in line.

It's inevitable. Illinois will fall in line, after dumping a few hundred million of taxpayer dollars fighting it.

The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. All members of the Supreme Court agreed, as does the President.

[Hoyt]

14. You'd spend a couple million bucks patching up a gun shot victim.

Maybe you ought to criticize those in a modern society who file frivolous suits so they can finally venture outside with a gun or two strapped to their body.

[Atypical Liberal]

17. I'll take the bad with the good.

If I have to spend a couple of million dollars dealing with the people who use guns to commit crimes so that the vast majority of law-abiding people can continue to keep and bear arms, I'm cool with that.

We'll see how cool the taxpayers are with continuing to spend millions trying to prevent people from keeping and bear arms.

I suspect my side is going to keep winning.

[Hoyt]

23. They wouldn't have to "prevent" people from carrying guns, if the "gun culture" were rational.

[liberal_biker]

25. The "gun culture" is rational

Its the criminals and the anti-gun culture that aren't

[Hoyt]

27. Wouldn't know that from the bunch here. Shoot, there's a criminal behind every tree and

in churches, parks, family restaurants, etc. That is not rational.

[rl6214]

66. "venture outside with a gun or two strapped to their body."

Ah, there's the good ole hoyt shtick.

[Hoyt]

22. The taxpayers don't seem to mind. Well, I'm sure all the TBaggers are whining.

[liberal_biker]

26. Sigh....

...yes, IL taxpayers do mind. They're getting a little sick of it really.

[Hoyt]

28. Apparently the majority of voters see it differently.

[liberal_biker]

29. Based on WHAT? A judges decision? n/t

[SteveW]

30. This judge ignores the Second's: "Right to keep and BEAR arms..."

Had she seriously addressed that portion of the Second, she would not have had to worry about any SCOTUS or U.S. Appeals Court decision. Just rearguard action on her part.

[Hoyt]

35. Maybe makeup of SCOTUS will change by then and Justice Stevens' dissent in Heller will prevail.

Right down to the four dissenting judges view of a "well regulated militia."

[Clames]

36. Maybe if you actually read the written...

....decision and the dissent you might clue in on the fact that all 9 SCOTUS justices found that there is an individual right. You and a few others could benefit from that self-educating exercise.

[Hoyt]

40. Except, it can be strictly restricted as far as those who tote.

I've said many time, you guys can do just about anything with your guns at home. But, public toting is over the line. As is obsessive gun accumulation and some of the "styles" of guns people covet.

It's time to get serious about guns, particularly in public.

[Clames]

41. Well you are right about one thing...

...it is time to get serious about guns in public. And we are making great strides in making sure every state has CCW and removing unwanted and ineffective legislation that gets in the way of public carry by law abiding citizens.

[Hoyt]

42. How nice.

[Clames]

43. Yup...

...nice to be on the winning side.

[Hoyt]

46. The wrong side has often won in history. No one wins when more guns are allowed to pollute society.

[Clames]

69. The good, law abiding citizen wins....

....it's the criminals who lose. I'm happy to be on the winning side.

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. And the "Guns are fluoride" meme is heard once again!

[rl6214]

68. Oh quit with your fucking shtick

It's not up to you where people get to carry their guns. It's not up to you to determine that something is an "obsessive gun accumulation", how many one may own or what "styles" of guns people want. Just because you "covet" inannimate objects dosen't mean others do.

[Hoyt]

76. It's up to the lawmakers we elect -- it's not up to those with guns on the brain to decide either.

[rl6214]

77. Up to the lawmakers and your side is losing

Tough for you, kinda like sucking on a lemon.

[Dissonance]

37. I gotta wonder

With all the years of effort and massive political capitol that President Obama, former speaker Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic Party leadership have spent trying to reassure gun owners that we're not going to take their guns away and aren't interested in draconian gun control schemes; why do you insist on these posts saying otherwise, these gifts to the right wing? It's bad enough when the NRA is telling it's members that Obama's just biding his time to break out his *real* gun control agenda, that unelecting him should be priority #1 for all gun owners because of the narrow SCOTUS split on 2nd Amendment issues; it's even worse when we live up to those scare tactics.

[Hoyt]

45. Just shows how sick gun owners are IF they would vote against Obama over guns. I see no reason

to pander to folks who are likely T-Baggers anyway.

[Dissonance]

48. Are you accusing

all gun owning Democrats of being secret Tea Partiers? Last I checked, gun ownership is not verboten in this party, and seeing as how there are an estimated 80 million gun owners in this country, it's a damn good thing it's not.

Also, I'm seeing a lot of hate and anger here, and it's not coming from the gun owning contingent. Its not easy being a gun owning Dem, the stereotyping, the insults, the misinformation, it all gets old after a while.

[Hoyt]

49. Read what I posted -- IF you would vote against Obama over guns. Would you do that?

[burf]

38. I have question.

Would Stare decisis come into play in a future court?

[Hoyt]

44. Maybe, if the court is still right wing and there is a reasonable argument that this is settled law.

Hopefully the former will change, and it certainly is not settled law except among those who cannot fathom life without strapping a gun or two on before venturing out into public areas.

[rl6214]

70. Blah, shtick, blah, shtick, blah, shtick

[rl6214]

67. Still waiting for all of the SC decisions that have been overturned by later courts.