Michael Moore v. Lisa Madigan
708 F.3d 901
7th Cir.2013Background
- Dissent from denial of rehearing en banc in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana public-carry cases.
- Supreme Court has not decided whether the Second Amendment right extends outside the home.
- Panel majority held public-carry restrictions unconstitutional, first circuit to strike down public-carry laws.
- En banc review is warranted to decide whether to affirm, reverse, or remand for factual development.
- Dissent emphasizes qualitative differences between home and public spaces and dangers of firearms in public.
- Panel proceedings allegedly blocked adversarial development of evidence on real-world impacts of public carrying
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a right to bear arms in public beyond the home? | Moore and panel logic wrongly extend Heller to public | Panel majority finds public-carry protections consistent with Heller | En banc review needed; not settled by Heller/McDonald |
| What is the proper constitutional scrutiny for public-carry restrictions? | Scrutiny should be clarified; likely intermediate | Panel leaves room for reasonable limits under current framework | Standard remains unsettled; en banc should define applicable scrutiny |
| Should the record be developed with adversarial evidence before ruling on narrower restrictions? | Full evidentiary record supports nuanced restrictions | Early injunctions and broad rulings are sufficient | En banc should allow evidence development and adversarial presentation |
| What breadth of public-carry restrictions can be constitutionally upheld? | Panel erred in foreclosing sensible limits | State may restrict in sensitive places and with reasonable limits | Remand to permit consideration of narrower, tailored restrictions under appropriate scrutiny |
Key Cases Cited
- Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (public safety limits; home-right focus of Heller)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (incorporation of Second Amendment to states)
- Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012) (public-carry rights discussion at panel level)
- Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012) (upholding 'proper cause' permit framework; sensitive places)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) (need for evidence in applying intermediate scrutiny in Second Amendment challenges)
- DiGiacinto v. Rector and Visitors of George Mason Univ., 281 Va. 127, 704 S.E.2d 365 (2011) (upholding campus fire-arms prohibition; regulatory context)
- United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (upholding firearm-possession restrictions for certain individuals)