http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=86exi4bab&v=001VLboNz7kWENGMUG4sHW6MYbB WcTIn67p7rDuE3Sey_kdf7Q81nMjBIvtCdrzl1VSKn8FPWDJ2B 7XujXFh43rdeQAWwxFbzuub8sgMyxPWQynrLKQsup6prgKzf5U Xf3Q3su908F-q1M%3D
Decision in Shepard / Moore v Madigan
We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home. The Supreme Court has decided that the 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 Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788 21
them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and
permanent injunctions. Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in
this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.
REVERSED AND REMANDED, WITH DIRECTIONS;
The legislature has 180 days to change the law.