Illinois Case heads for appeal...

[IllHunter]

Moving on! The ink on the decision wasn't dry, the appeal was.

 

[SorenityNow]

Im hoping for good news.. I couldnt but notice the plantif named michael moore.... That s not the same mike moore movie guy is it??

 

[wildbilll]

Having read the outcomes of recent federal cases where the government is being challenged, I think most federal judges rule in favor of the government with full knowledge the case is going higher. The ruling in this case was no surpise, hence the "ink wasn't yet dry" when the appeal was filed.
This is going all the way to the USSC.
It is absurd to think that your right to self defense with a firearm is limited to the home, when you venture out, you are at risk, yet the USSC has already ruled that the police are not required to protect you.
I remember language in Heller that said there were some sensitive places where firearms could be prohibited but they didn't say it was everywhere but inside your house.

 

[Standing Wolf]

It is absurd to think that your right to self defense with a firearm is limited to the home, when you venture out, you are at risk, yet the USSC has already ruled that the police are not required to protect you.

Yep. There are several absurdities at work, and I believe they are and aren't related.

In the first place, requiring the police to protect any individual citizen would be impossible. There've been some cases in which it's apparent the police should have acted, but didn't for one reason or a dozen others; in the vast majority of situations, however, I think we have to agree the police can't be everywhere they're needed all the time. The net result: you're on your own.

That net result is of less than no interest whatever to leftists. This is the point, I think, at which several factors begin to operate at once.

Leftists are terrified of the thought of common people with guns, and that terror has much, much more to do with skin color than they'd ever even consider admitting. America's first so-called "gun control" laws were written to prevent Indians and slaves from keeping and bearing arms. Our first extensive so-called "gun control" laws, written in the wake of the Civil War, were designed to prevent freed slaves from keeping and bearing arms. New York's Sullivan Act was written to keep recent immigrants from competing with older, well established criminal gangs.

Leftists value the state far more highly than individuals. Government and government officials need to be protected in their view, but individuals are on their own. The mayors of Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, et alia have bodyguards whose services the citizens are required to pay for. Government buildings are guarded. Citizens' lives are worth much less to government than to ourselves; at least equally to the point, government actively distrusts us to defend our lives and property. Yes, people can own guns in Washington, D.C. now, but the city's reaction to the Heller decision was to make it as difficult and expensive and bothersome as possible for commoners to acquire guns, and even then, the kinds of guns people can own are severely restricted.

In my corner of Colorado, it's relatively easy to get a Permit to Carry Concealed Handguns; there's more foot dragging and hassling in other places, but it's possible—but we still need government permission to defend our lives. People in Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming don't need government permission. Wisconsin has finally recognized the right of individuals to defend their lives; neighboring Illinois, however, is still fighting it fang and claw, tooth and nail. Why such a range of attitudes?

The statists—those who value government above all else—are more deeply entrenched in some places than others. Prior to the Heller decision, they could effectively get away with whatever draconian laws they wanted. After that decision, which referred only to guns in people's homes, they're putting up the most energetic resistance they can muster, which is to say: they have large reserves of tax dollars to spend on lawyers to defend their prejudices in courts of law.

Why should they even care? I didn't use the word "terrified" above carefully. They want the common people to believe their only safety is provided by government, and they're also terrified of individual citizens, especially young unmarried males with black or brown skin, walking around with guns. They believe anyone and everyone who has guns is dangerous. They know it's easier to control people who are dependent upon government than those who think and act independently. If you look at history, you'll see self-appointed "better" people have always and everywhere feared and despised the "lower classes." Our professional political class has carved out a niche for itself that provides abundant power, wealth, and protection from competition. As far as they're concerned, independence is a fine topic for speeches on Independence Day, but real independence is a threat to their self-appointed privileges.

Leftist so-called "gun control" is partly about guns, mainly about control.

 

[Owen Sparks]

It is based in a belief that the state should have a monopoly on the use of force.

 

[Deanimator]

It is based in a belief that the state should have a monopoly on the use of force.

And NO duty to protect individuals... although they'll lie about that if necessary.