Fed district court: 2A does not apply outside one's home

[nogods]

In Moore v. Madigan, 11-cv-03134 (DC CDIL, 2/3/2012), the court held that the Second Amendment does not provide a right to possess firearms outside of one’s home. The opinion contained a list of recent cases addressing the issue.

More here: Federal District Court Holds that 2A Does Not Apply Outside the Home

[Bob in Bristol]

Susan E Myerscough, Judge of the United States District Court for the Central
District of Illinois, appointed by Barack Hussein Obama in 2011. Need I say more about the Moore case. Another example of why Barack Hussein Obama can and should only be a one term President. The cases the Judge used were examples that fit her opinion. The Heller and McDonald cases decided by the Supreme Court only addressed the possession of a firearm in the home, but made no ruling on whether it did or did not extend beyond your property. If the right to possess beyound your property did not exist, I doubt CC would be allowed in 49 States.

[S&W645]

And yet in your link nogods, you find:

People v. Mimes, 953 N.E.2d 55, 73 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011) (finding that the Second Amendment right is not limited to the home because the “inherent right to self-defense” that is central to the Heller decision “does not disappear outside the home” but, nonetheless, holding that the challenged Illinois AUUW statute survives intermediate scrutiny and does not violate the Second Amendment).

It can't be both ways.

[nogods]

And yet in your link nogods, you find: It can't be both ways.

Until the court of final say rules, it can be both ways.

actually, the State court held that the 2nd applied outside the home, but the laws at issue were permissible restrictions.

That is why the plaintiffs went to federal court, hoping to get a different ruling on both issues.

[nogods]

If the right to possess beyound your property did not exist, I doubt CC would be allowed in 49 States.

that's the 10th amendment, not the 2nd

[Bob in Bristol]

that's the 10th amendment, not the 2nd

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Are you saying the 2nd Amendment is not a power delegated to the United States. That the United States is not responsible to ensure that right. If we have a right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS and the States restricts our right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, is it not the Federal Goverments job to ensure those rights. I am not sure myself. This is all too complicated. I need all the help I can get to figure this whole thing out. Thanks for the post, nogods.

[nogods]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Are you saying the 2nd Amendment is not a power delegated to the United States. That the United States is not responsible to ensure that right. If we have a right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS and the States restricts our right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, is it not the Federal Goverments job to ensure those rights. I am not sure myself. This is all too complicated. I need all the help I can get to figure this whole thing out. Thanks for the post, nogods.

The Moore case (the recent federal district court decision) and the Mime case (the state of Illinois decision) cited in the post represent the post-Heller/post-McDonald approaches to the 2nd Amendment.

First, the court determines if the proscribed conduct is within the scope of the 2nd Amendment. Moore said it wasn't, Mime said it was.

If so, the court then determines whether the law violates the 2nd Amendment under the appropriate scrutiny test (intermediate or strict.)

The court in Moore didn't have to reach this issue because it held that the conduct proscribed by the AUUW (possession of a firearm outside of one's home) was not within the scope of the 2nd Amendment. The court, however, also ruled that even if the conduct was covered by the 2nd, it would apply the intermediate scrutiny test, and would find that the law past that test.

The Mime decision held that the proscribed conduct was covered by the 2nd Amendment, that the proper test was intermediate scrutiny, and that the law passed the intermediate scrutiny test.

Thus, Moore and Mime disagreed as to whether possession of a weapon outside of one's home was covered by the 2nd, but they agreed that if it was covered by the 2nd then the proper test was intermediate scrutiny and that the Illinois AUUW passed the intermediate scrutiny test.

If the Moore case is correct, then possession of a firearm outside of one's home is totally dependent on state law (which means the 10th amendment comes into play in resisting federal prohibitions of what the state allows.) If the Mime case is correct, then the state has to show that a restriction of firearms outside of one's home passes the appropriate scrutiny test.

I think the SCOTUS would hold that the court in Moore erred on the first issue, and that the court in mime applied the wrong scrutiny test. I think the SCOTUS will hold that possession of a firearm outside of one's home is protected by the 2nd Amendment (even though most courts that have addressed the issue have held otherwise) and that a law that completely prohibits all firearm possession outside of one's home is a violation of the 2nd Amendment because it can't pass the strict scrutiny test.

[BluesStringer]

The Moore case (the recent federal district court decision) and the Mime case (the state of Illinois decision) cited in the post represent the post-Heller/post-McDonald approaches to the 2nd Amendment.

First, the court determines if the proscribed conduct is within the scope of the 2nd Amendment. Moore said it wasn't, Mime said it was.

If so, the court then determines whether the law violates the 2nd Amendment under the appropriate scrutiny test (intermediate or strict.)

The court in Moore didn't have to reach this issue because it held that the conduct proscribed by the AUUW (possession of a firearm outside of one's home) was not within the scope of the 2nd Amendment. The court, however, also ruled that even if the conduct was covered by the 2nd, it would apply the intermediate scrutiny test, and would find that the law past that test.

The Mime decision held that the proscribed conduct was covered by the 2nd Amendment, that the proper test was intermediate scrutiny, and that the law passed the intermediate scrutiny test.

Thus, Moore and Mime disagreed as to whether possession of a weapon outside of one's home was covered by the 2nd, but they agreed that if it was covered by the 2nd then the proper test was intermediate scrutiny and that the Illinois AUUW passed the intermediate scrutiny test.

If the Moore case is correct, then possession of a firearm outside of one's home is totally dependent on state law (which means the 10th amendment comes into play in resisting federal prohibitions of what the state allows.) If the Mime case is correct, then the state has to show that a restriction of firearms outside of one's home passes the appropriate scrutiny test.

I think the SCOTUS would hold that the court in Moore erred on the first issue, and that the court in mime applied the wrong scrutiny test. I think the SCOTUS will hold that possession of a firearm outside of one's home is protected by the 2nd Amendment (even though most courts that have addressed the issue have held otherwise) and that a law that completely prohibits all firearm possession outside of one's home is a violation of the 2nd Amendment because it can't pass the strict scrutiny test.

I don't always agree with you nogods, but I do appreciate your stick-to-the-issues way of scrutinizing legal issues. This thread is very helpful, especially the above post. Thanks for it/them.

Couple of questions: Are you thinking SCOTUS will take one or both of these cases?

And, I take it from you saying that they would go against the lower court rulings if they do, that you think Kennedy will stick with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito in deciding such. Is that a fair assumption, or can you envision any of the others voting pro-2A, or voting to strengthen precedent in favor of 2A, however it's best to state it? If you're relying on Kennedy, besides the very narrow rulings of Heller and McDonald, what leads you to believe he has the courage and/or the commitment to what most of us believe is the original intent of the Framers to expand on those narrow rulings? I am not very familiar with his voting record beyond Heller and McDonald, except to say that I hear often that he's considered to have replaced O'Connor as the "moderate" vote on the Court, and with "conservatism" having been so thoroughly dumbed-down to make Mitt Romney the best "conservative" choice in this upcoming election, "moderate" isn't a word that instills a lot of confidence for me. It may well be though, that there is a history in Kennedy's voting record that would calm my fears in that regard, so it's an honest question.

Blues

[Bob in Bristol]

The Moore case (the recent federal district court decision) and the Mime case (the state of Illinois decision) cited in the post represent the post-Heller/post-McDonald approaches to the 2nd Amendment.

First, the court determines if the proscribed conduct is within the scope of the 2nd Amendment. Moore said it wasn't, Mime said it was.

If so, the court then determines whether the law violates the 2nd Amendment under the appropriate scrutiny test (intermediate or strict.)

The court in Moore didn't have to reach this issue because it held that the conduct proscribed by the AUUW (possession of a firearm outside of one's home) was not within the scope of the 2nd Amendment. The court, however, also ruled that even if the conduct was covered by the 2nd, it would apply the intermediate scrutiny test, and would find that the law past that test.

The Mime decision held that the proscribed conduct was covered by the 2nd Amendment, that the proper test was intermediate scrutiny, and that the law passed the intermediate scrutiny test.

Thus, Moore and Mime disagreed as to whether possession of a weapon outside of one's home was covered by the 2nd, but they agreed that if it was covered by the 2nd then the proper test was intermediate scrutiny and that the Illinois AUUW passed the intermediate scrutiny test.

If the Moore case is correct, then possession of a firearm outside of one's home is totally dependent on state law (which means the 10th amendment comes into play in resisting federal prohibitions of what the state allows.) If the Mime case is correct, then the state has to show that a restriction of firearms outside of one's home passes the appropriate scrutiny test.

I think the SCOTUS would hold that the court in Moore erred on the first issue, and that the court in mime applied the wrong scrutiny test. I think the SCOTUS will hold that possession of a firearm outside of one's home is protected by the 2nd Amendment (even though most courts that have addressed the issue have held otherwise) and that a law that completely prohibits all firearm possession outside of one's home is a violation of the 2nd Amendment because it can't pass the strict scrutiny test.

Thanks for trying to educate me, it helped, I know even at 62 I still have alot to learn. Some on this site must understand, we are not all pointed in the right direction, and it takes some (like myself) longer to get and absorb all the facts.

[BC1]

There is another federal court ruling similar in nature.

In a decision in the case of Kachalsky, et al. v. Cacace, et al, a federal judge rejected a constitutional challenge to handgun licensing statutes, ruling that individuals do not have a constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun in public.

I believe this case was decided in September 2011. This issue is headed to the SCOTUS sooner or later.

Don't shoot the messenger over the message.