In partnership with CBSSports.com
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Moore v Madigan, says lawful concealed carry is protected by the Second Amendment.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in Peterson v Martinez, says lawful concealed carry is not protected by the Second Amendment.
You should know how the U.S. Supreme Court views split circuits.
Should be allowed this is a non issue. Just one of the many ways you can bear arms.
“Keep” was decided by D.C. v Heller and applied to the states via McDonald v Chicago.
“Bear” has yet to be decided by the High Court. The case that decides that may be Moore v Madigan or Peterson v Martinez.
Murky loves the drama. We aren't going to outlaw weapons but the gun lovers have less to fantasize about if they accept that.
I think a good solution is requiring one to show a photo ID to prove they are 18 or older and their carry permit or Hunter Safety card to purchase ammunition. In MI every hunter born after 1960 is required to to have completed the Hunter Safety Education program.
Blithering old fool. It has nothing to do with outlawing weapons and it has nothing to do with buying ammo. It has everything to do with establishing as a fundamental right the prospect of carrying in public for the purpose of self-defense if one chooses to do so, not as a privilege granted by the government the way it is now.
This isn't a surprise. Second Amendment jurisprudence is still in its infancy. This is probably only one Second Amendment issue out of many that will result in a split among the circuits.
The RCMB...is one of the most awful, alarming, inappropriate, disgusting, and offensive msg boards in the history of the internet.
Murky is getting angry.
We aren't going to outlaw guns Murky. You can sit in your bunker and masturbate as you gaze at your guns for all I care.
What we will see is legislation on gun purchases and possibly limiting sales of guns limiting magazines to 10 rounds. I would like to see a ban on future sales of magazines over 10. I would also like to see better regulation on purchasing ammo. First because it just makes too much sense. Secondly because it makes gun fans like you froth at the mouth and start name calling because you have no answer top a common sense idea.
You can't purchase a car without registration. You can't legally drive a car without insurance and the states require you to carry insurance on a car for annual tags. But I don't see you wailing about your loss of freedom in that case. I'm not saying you can't purchase ammunition. I am suggesting you be required to submit proof of age and proof you have completed state recognized gun safety classes so you can purchase ammunition.
this is a non-issue, the court in Moore v Madigan simply instructed the Illinois legislature to draft a more narrowly-tailored law regulating carrying of concealed weapons.
I think we should take some of these people, and send 'em up to Bear Mountain for a picnic.
In December, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in a 2-1 panel decision, ruled that Illinois’ prohibition of any form of concealed carry was unconstitutional under provisions of the Second Amendment. The panel cited the both the Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) Supreme Court decisions in reaching such a conclusion and directed the state to implement some form of concealed carry law. On Friday, the Seventh Circuit, in a 5-4 decision, refused state AG Lisa Madigan’s request to grant en banc review of the panel decision. Madigan has until mid-March to file a petition of cert with the Supreme Court. Otherwise, the legislature must act by June to pass a law allowing for some form of concealed carry.
Also on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in Peterson v Martinez, ruled that "the carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment…"
So, the Seventh Circuit says carry a concealed firearm is protected by the 2nd Amendment; the Tenth Circuit says it isn’t.
Sure looks like a split circuit to me.
This post was edited by Murky Waters 17 months ago
Also, in mid-February, the Second Amendment Foundation, represented by Alan Gura, filed a petition for cert with SCOTUS in the case of Kachalsky v. Cacace in which the Second Circuit upheld a county law that provided discretionary issuance of concealed carry permits. This petition for cert is asking SCOTUS to take and decide whether discretionary issuance of carry licenses is unconstitutional and points to the circuit split with Moore v Madigan in the Seventh as the basis:
You were going to write a letter to the Michigan AG requesting that he change the law regarding open carry in schools. Never mind that the AG has no power to change existing law.
Shows how much an old fool like you knows.
Go back to shoving Wheat Thins up your nose, Grandpa.
Ageism does not make yor statements any credible. Are you rebelling against your parents still?
have you read both opinions? the rule in the 7th Circuit was that the Illinois statute was overbroad, and that the state much draft something more narrowly-tailored, e.g. similar to the New York statute. the court was pretty clear that it would accept something akin to the New York restrictions.
How many public roads do you drive your guns on? And I was just wondering, where in the constitution does it say "the right of the people to keep and drive automobiles shall not be infringed"?
This post was edited by OldOneEye 17 months ago
For fuks sake, I know what the decision said. I've followed the case since its inception. And I know what options are available to the Illinois AG. She can either let the ruling stand or she call file a writ of cert with SCOTUS. If she lets it stand, the state must implement SOME FORM of concealed carry law. I even stated that above. Pay attention.
I know the difference between "may issue" laws versus "shall issue" laws when it comes to concealed carry. I know the issues in New York and the 2nd Circuit ruling in Kachalsky v. Cacace. I even posted a link to Gura's filing with SCOTUS in that case in his petition for writ of cert. Pay attention.
In Illinois, prior to the 7th Circuit's December ruling, THERE WAS NO STATUTE, overly broad or not, regarding concealed carry. Illinois prohibited ANY FORM of concealed carry. The 7th Circuit decision stated that the TOTAL PROHIBITION of concealed carry in Illinois was UNCONSTITUTIONAL under provisions of the Second Amendment, citing both Heller and McDonald.
I find it hilarious that you state Moore v Madigan is a "non-issue" yet an attorney who has successfully argued 2nd Amendment cases before the Supreme Court cited it in his wirt of cert filing with SCOTUS in another 2A case.
you sure are an angry fucker, huh? I never said Madigan was a non-issue, the non-issue is your assertion of a split circuit. the facts and circumstances surrounding both cases are completely different, and the statements in each of the opinions regarding what the 2nd Amendment says or does not say about concealed carry is nothing more than dicta. unless they are idiots, the Illinois legislature will craft a more narrow concealed carry law, since under the current state of the law the Illinois statute that was challenged is clearly overbroad and the case would be almost a certain loser with the Supremes.
Overbroad my ass. It's just the opposite. It's overly-narrow in that only a very select few can get a permit -- retired LEO, security guards going to and from work and some BS about concealed carry on private property with owner permission. That's it.
Just watch and see what Peterson does regarding the Tenth Circuit decision.
it is overbroad because it is not narrowly-tailored to meet a legitimate government interest, which is the basis of the 7th Circuit decision.
That's all well and good, but you seem to be of the opinion that the decision of the court was to mandate the state legislature rewrite the law. That was not the decision. The actual decision of the court was stayed for 180 days to allow the legislature the *opportunity* to rewrite the law. Here is the decision of the court:
"The Supreme Court has decided that the [Second Amendment] confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense. Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions.”
Is that in dicta, or is that the opinion of the court specific to the matter before it? That Illinois’ sweeping ban on concealed carry for most individuals is unconstitutional?
And this is from the Tenth Circuit decision:
“With respect to Peterson’s claims against the Denver sheriff, we conclude that the carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment…”
Is that in dicta, or is that an opinion rendered specific to the matter before the court?
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Murky Waters 17 months ago
Wonder if Murkey works for the gun industry?
We ice fishing with some friends yesterday and was told Silver Bullet Firearms got a shipment of pistols in and had a line of over 90 people waiting to purchase anything they had. Same guy who shoots at Silver Bullet's firing range went to two places for ammo .22 and .45 and both were sold out at both places.
The NRA is doing their job for the gun industry. They are creating a Cabbage Patch Kids scenario.
This post was edited by GRR Spartan 17 months ago
Judges shouldn't make law... activist judges... making up new rights that the Founders never envisioned... subverting democracy... etc. etc.
Neither is a case of activist judges making law, IMO. They are cases of judges’ interpretation of the constitutionality of laws under challenge from citizens.
Peterson v Martinez began as a case challenging Denver’s prohibition of issuing concealed carry licenses to non-residents. The case then morphed into a right-to-carry case, witnessed by the fact that the city of Denver deferred to the state Attorney General to argue it. The state AG repeatedly made the argument that there exists no 2A right to carry concealed in public. The Tenth Circuit agreed.
Yet in the Seventh Circuit, the court found that Illinois “sweeping ban” on carrying concealed was unconstitutional.
So one court decided to expand constitutional rights into previously uncharted territory? And the other court showed restraint and respect for the democratically elected legislature?
I guess you could phrase it that way.
Another way to phrase it is that in light of the High Court's 2008 decision in Heller, one court interpreted the Second Amendment to mean something that the other court did not.
That's why the Supreme Court exists -- to settle such, for lack of a better term, "confusion" within the circuits.
The funny thing is that in comparing the make-up of the two courts, the Tenth Circuit is generally viewed as being the more-conservative of the two. Yet it was the Tenth that rendered the decision unfavorable to pro-2A individuals.
The Tenth Circuit decision was rendered by a three-judge panel. I fully expect the attorney for Gray Peterson to request an en blanc rehearing before the court, just as Illinois’ AG did of the Seventh.
Yup, there's clearly some confusion over this newly created constitutional right that the Supreme Court created after 217 years of it never having existed.
And sometimes, the Supreme Court declines to resolve splits.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports