Lake Erie Conservative

thoughtful discussion(s) about issue(s)

Posts Tagged ‘right to carry’

… Great News on Gun Rights [#Peoples Republic of D.C.]

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,August 3rd,2014

.. yes , it is free .

.. our nation ‘ s capital is now no longer a gun free zone ..

.. for many years , the District of Columbia has had one of , if not the fiercest gun grab laws in the country . You simply could not carry a gun on the streets of the District for ANY reason , for more than 50 years ..

.. [h/t — LegalInsurrection]..
.. [link] to the legal opinion ..

.. it will be interesting to see what the D.C. city government decides to do . This case is in federal court , not the captive courts of the District , and would go up to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals , where both Heller and McDonald originated . I think that the government wants to appeal this , and maintain their precious gun ban , but the gun grab groups may well be having second thoughts ..

.. First , this one has to go to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals . It now has a more stacked 7to4 democrap majority , but Heller and McDonald are binding precedent . They just may well try to mess with them, surprisingly enough . Doing so , though , would piss off the Supremes ….

.. Heller and McDonald were decided 6 to 3 , not 5 to 4  , so they are not slim majorities . The gun – grab groups may not want to risk setting a nationwide case precedent . Drake v. Jerejian might be one case . Moore v Madigan might be another case . Palmer just may be a case were  the gun grab groups are stupid enough to push it up the way , and have it blow up in their faces  ..

.. especially when the definition of ” bear ” arms comes from , not a majority opinion , but a dissent , and of all people , from Justice Ginsberg in a dissent in another case …

Advertisements

Posted in 2nd Amendment, constitutional opinion, legal opinion, legal question, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… I was Right [9th Circuit Gun Case (Peruta v Cty of San Diego)]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Friday,February 21st,2014

.. I picked up on this article , and this one comes from another legal blog that I like to follow , entitled the Volokh Conspiracy . It is well worth your while to look at and sample …

.. this 9th Circuit case is going to get wrapped into the New Jersey gun rights case , and both will make it to the United States Supreme Court . The full 9th Circuit might want to try to go ” en banc , ” but the Supremes will beat them to the punch , and take up the other case … it thus blocks any move against this one ….

.. Also , this one is usable in the circuit against Hawaii and California ‘ s much more odious gun laws . The district court judges may or may not respect it , but they have to follow it . Much more so when a 6-3 ruling comes down overturning the New Jersey gun law …

.. [h/t — Volokh Conspiracy]..

.. [link] to the blog post ..

Growth chart of right to carry

David Kopel

The chart below shows how Shall Issue laws for the licensed carrying of firearms for self-defense have become the American norm.

As of 1986, slightly less than 10% of the U.S. population lived in states where there were objective and fair procedures for the issuance of concealed handgun carry permits. About a third of the population lived in states where there was not even a process to apply for a permit. The majority of the population lived in states where issuance in permits was highly discretionary, and many issuing authorities refused to issue to ordinary law-abiding citizens.

By 2014, the percentage of people living in the Red states, with no possibility of even applying for a permit, has declined to zero. Illinois’ 2013 reforms ended the problem of states not even having a process theoretically available. (The problem persists in DC, but this chart is only for states.)

As of January 2014, about 2/3 of the population lived in a Green state, with a Shall Issue licensing statute.

Purple states (concealed carry is allowed without need for a permit) have increased from Vermont only in 1986 to several states comprising about 4% of the population. Currently, the Purple states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont, and Wyoming (residents only).

The Yellow states (arbitrary permitting) were the national norm in 1986, but they are now outliers. Unless the 9th Circuits’ decision in Peruta is overturned, California and Hawaii will have to become Shall Issue states.

This will leave Yellow states at less than 1/7 of the U.S. population.

Moreover, some parts of the Yellow “may issue” states are already issuing permits as if they were Green. In New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Delaware, permits are issued by local authorities, and in some jurisdictions, local authorities issue in a manner consistent with respect for the right to bear arms. Permits are rarely issued in Maryland, and are extremely rare in New Jersey.

The six hold-out states are increasingly isolated. Not counting tiny Rhode Island and Delaware, the four larger hold-out states each are all bordered mainly by Green states. (Mass. by upper New England and Connecticut; NY by Penn., Vt., and Conn.; NJ by Penn.; Maryland by Penn., Vir., and WV). It should also be noted that in two of Delaware’s three counties, permit issuance is often approximately what a Green state would do.

Rhode Island is sui generis. There are two licensing statutes: a “may issue” statute for the Attorney General, and a “shall issue” state for municipalities. Getting a municipality to follow the statute and issue a permit may require great persistence, and even that is not always successful.

It is interesting to compare the above chart to the map showing the demise of laws against “sodomy” (oral or anal sex), between 1970 and 2003. On the eve of Lawrence v. Texas, there were still 13 states which had sodomy statutes.

Thanks to Rob Vance for gathering the data and producing the chart.

David Kopel
David Kopel is Research Director, Independence Institute, Denver, Colorado; Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C; and Adjunct professor of advanced constitutional law, Denver University, Sturm College of Law. He is author of 15 books and 90 scholarly journal articles.

Posted in constitutional opinion, legal opinion, legal strategy, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Concealed Carry is Coming , Govenor Quinn — Get Over It …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,July 9th,2013

Concealed Carry is Coming , Patrick

Get Over It

.. today is the day .

.. and , the Illinois Legislature should fully reject Governor Pat Quinn ’ s gun bill changes

.. today , the General Assembly will convene in Springfield. Its first action should be a swift override of Governor Pat Quinn’s amendatory veto of the concealed carry bill.

.. the short porch is this — the U. S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has found Illinois longstanding and outright ban on firearm being carried by civilians unconstitutional . This ban applies completely to any guns , at all , period . Not just to concealed – carry , contrary to news reports . The carry ban in public is gone , period . End of Story .

.. The Appeals Court has given the State of Illinois until July 9th [today] to come up with a full solution . This state is , at this moment , remains the last state in the union with no provision for firearm carry by ordinary citizens.

.. State Rep. Brandon Phelps , D-Harrisburg, a longtime Second Amendment defender, is one of the sponsors and was one of the lead downstate negotiators on legislation that finally got enough Chicago Democrats — including House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton — on board.

.. Amazingly enough , a fairly neutral bill made its way through the Illinois Legislature .  A bill hardly light on background checks , carry restrictions , no – gun zones , training , and other serious matters easily cleared both chambers with impressive super-majority votes in both chambers: 89-28 in the House and 45-12 in the Senate. The final bill was no sweetheart of the National Rifle Association or the Illinois State Rifle Association, which both backed up and took a formal positions of “neutral.” Some of those groups own members, as well as other pro – gun groups, ripped the potential law as too restrictive, vague and open to abuse by police.

.. Incredibly enough , Governor Quinn did not want to call it a day . He wanted a stronger bill . One which may not meet the requirements of the Appeals Court . A week before the court-imposed deadline for action, Quinn used his amendatory veto powers to issue a broad rewrite of the carry bill . Quinn ’ s rewrite would make permits even tougher to get , and it would further reduce the already-restricted places the public could carry. If not overridden, his veto effectively guts the bill.

.. Whether his actions were spurred by deep conviction , or they were motivated by practical politics, the governor’s broad amendatory veto overreached.

.. Quinn , for all his traits, seem to have waved a dismissive hand at everyone outside the city limits of Chicago, not to mention some well-informed people there who can strongly argue that guns are not the cause of Chicago’s horrendous homicide problem.

.. The Appeals Court , and the people of the State of Illinois have spoken . They have acted through their elected representatives , and they support concealed carry. Quinn’s attempt to gut the bill seems to speak volumes of his disregard for citizens other than those from his own shrinking fan club.

.. State Representative Phelps has already filed his motion to override, and he believes the bill as originally sent to Quinn has the support of both the membership numbers and the legislative leadership.

.. Quinn’s amendatory veto is bad law and bad politics.

.. The General Assembly needs to override Quinn’s veto in its entirety and send him a clear message: This political fight is over .

.. then , and only then , will the Appeals Court act , and then they may accept this bill , and think about it . They may not . Moore v. Madigan would then go into full effect . Then all hell would break loose in Illinois . Even POTUS may well be drawn into the fray .

.. The old carry ban would be gone . Not only that , the concealed – carry ban would be gone , as well . The Illinois Legislature would then have to step in , somehow .

It would turn the streets and woodlands of the state into the Wild West .

.. to be honest , that may not be such a bad idea . The bad guys and gals would have to be afraid . Very afraid . The people that they would be trying to pick on would finally be able to legally defend themselves . It is about damn time !

== Update [July 9th,2013] ==

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Illinois was poised to become the last state in the nation to allow public possession of concealed guns as lawmakers rushed Tuesday to finalize a proposal ahead of a federal court’s deadline.

Both chambers of the Legislature were convening to try to override changes Gov. Pat Quinn made to the bill they approved more than a month ago. Even some critics of the law argued approving something was better than letting the courts allow virtually unregulated concealed weapons in Chicago, which has endured severe gun violence in recent months.

The Senate planned to take up the measure Tuesday, after the House voted 77-31 to override the Democratic governor’s amendatory veto. Quinn had used his veto authority to suggest changes such as prohibiting guns in restaurants that serve alcohol and limiting gun-toting citizens to one firearm at a time.

LEC here — the Illinois House has now voted . It is now time for the Illinois Senate to do likewise …

Posted in Investigative, personal opinion, political opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »