Home General Seventh Circuit Gun Decision May Help Win a Pending Illinois Ballot Access Case
formats

Seventh Circuit Gun Decision May Help Win a Pending Illinois Ballot Access Case

Published on December 11, 2012, by in General.

On December 11, the 7th circuit struck down Illinois’ law forbidding the carrying of concealed weapons. Moore v Madigan, 12-1269. The decision was 2-1, and was written by Judge Richard Posner. One of the reasons the majority struck down the law was that no other state has such a prohibition. Judge Posner wrote, “There is no suggestion that some unique characteristic of criminal activity in Illinois justifies the state’s taking a different approach from the other 49 states. If the Illinois approach were demonstrably superior, one would expect at least one or two states to have emulated it.”

Currently, the Libertarian Party is challenging Illinois unique law that requires newly-qualifying parties to run a full slate of candidates. The U.S. District Court in this election case has already enjoined the law, reasoning that Illinois doesn’t really need such a restriction, because no other state has ever had a similar restriction. Assuming the case also wins declaratory relief in the U.S. District Court (which is extremely likely), the 7th circuit’s reasoning in the gun case will also help the Libertarian Party to win in the 7th circuit, if the state appeals.

2 Responses

  1. Demo Rep

    ONE State was the first to pass a new unique law on some subject.

    ONE more MORON court opinion by activist MORON judges.

    SCOTUS should have an automatic reversal on appeal on any UNIQUE stuff by a SOVEREIGN State of the Union.

    Office – Election AREA — NOTHING to do with any other thing since Adam and Eve.

    i.e. the New Age MORON courts do NOT know how to understand BASIC legal classifications — thus the nonstop worse and worse JUNK opinions.

  2. Isn’t the constitutional theory a double-edged sword? Doesn’t it follow that if 49 states require (for example) petitions signed by 5% of the voters to get on the ballot, then there must be some legitimate government interest in such a requirement?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Protected with SiteGuarding.com Antivirus