Illinois Rebuked: Can't Forbid Concealed Carry No More!


Well, not unequivocally. I think the Constitution does not, in fact, grant the right to carry concealed, although I do think it grants the right to carry. But I also think that this reading of the Second Amendment is consistent with similar approaches to other Amendments. The Fourth Amendment, for example, does not compel exclusion of evidence as a remedy, but courts read one in in order to strengthen the basic message and protection.

No reason the Second Amendment should be the only one not invited to the Expansive Reading Party.

I thought your position was that “expansive reading” should not be overturned once it is established law, but that we should stop it where it is.

Yes. But sicne we’re NOT stopping it where it was in any other arena, I’m not going to complain when the same technique is extended to the Second Amendment.

But I’d gladly trade this ruling for a a generalized agreement to stop expansive readings across the board.

From what I can tell the law in question barred carrying a ready-to-use weapon outside the home period (save for some special uses, hunting, police, etc) not just concealed carry.

This seems perfectly predictable after Heller and McDonald. Until some additional SCOTUS guidance just about any restriction on gun use for self defense is Constitutionally suspect.

OK, but then you should not complain even when expansive readings produce a result you don’t agree with, as long as it’s in line with other expansive readings. That is, if you want to continue claiming consistency of analysis applied to decisions.

And I’ll let that subject drop now so this doesn’t turn into a thread about you. :wink:

They’ll do it NYC style: make carry permits “may issue”, put the burden on applicants to prove they have a particular reason to need one, and other than retired police officers and armored car guards issue a few hundred for the entire state, mostly to people owed political favors. :dubious:

I was stunned that POSNER, of all judges ruled this way. I agree with Bricker, though. Concealed carry isn’t a constitutional right, but some form of carry must be allowed (no expansive reading needed: bear arms or carry arms).

I also agree with Lumpy. The legislature will pass the most worthless carry bill ever…

And I finally get to nitpick Bricker! The exclusionary rule is not rooted in the 4th amendment, but is a judge made rule to enforce it. U.S. v. Calandra

This is good news. As an aside, I’ve always been frustrated as to what I perceive as deliberate misrepresentation of the 2nd amendment. The second amendment is written with so much clarity that if you were to read it to ESL students, they would be able to capture its meaning. What’s so hard to understand that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed”? Yet arms such as flamethrowers and semi- and automatic guns remain (puzzlingly) illegal. I mean, really, how can Congress have authority to ban what should be permitted by the Constitution without a Constitutional Amendment?

  • Honesty

So you think it means “any and all arms”?

Flamethowers, semi-automatic firearms, and automatic firearms are all legal in the United States.

AFAIK, flamethrowers are perfectly legal as are semi-auto weapons. Full auto weapons are subject to a tax that John Roberts feels is in the power of the feds to enact. (Though, you are right that they have prohibited post-1986 registration of full autos).

I agree in spirit with you, though. If gun regulations were subject to the same scrutiny as, say, abortion regulations, they would present an undue burden on gun owners…

Yes, I do. Where in the amendment do you see evidence to the contrary?

  • Honesty

Nuclear weapons for everyone!

Don’t hold us in suspense man. Where can I purchase a flamethrower? I’ve Googled this and I’m not been able to find a vendor. If my hypothetical flamethrower is concealed under a leather jacket, will I be able to carry a CCW for it?

  • Honesty

Check a gardening supply website for a flamethrower.

Here you go. :stuck_out_tongue:

As I’ve posted in other threads, weapons of mass destruction can legitimately be said to fall under a federal monopoly due to Article One Section Ten, third clause.

Wonderful. I can’t wait to see all the crimes stopped by concealed carriers, I feel safer already.

There are at least three terms that require definition:“well regulated”, “arms”, and “infringed”.

Then one can begin to discuss the intended purpose of the amendment (preventing/allowing insurrection, enabling self-defense, law enforcement, providing for a ready militia, allowing for hunting) and its purpose today.

I guess I would propose a counter-question: Where in the amendment do you see evidence that allows for restriction of gun ownership by felons or the insane?