# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls Fo r th e Se ve n th C irc u it Ch i cago , I l l i noi s 6 0604 Febr uary22 , 20 13

B efo re F RANK H. EAS TE RB RO OK, Chi e f Judg e R IC H A R D A . PO SN E R, Cir cu i tJudg e JO E L M . FL A U M , Cir cu i tJudg e M IC H A E L S. K A N N E , Cir cu i tJudg e IL A N A D IA M O N D R O V N E R, Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E P . W O O D , Cir cu i tJudg e A N N C L A IR E W IL L IA M S, Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E S. SY K E S, Cir cu i tJudg e JO H N D A N IE L T IN D E R, Cir cu i tJudg e D A V ID F. H A M IL T O N , Cir cu i tJudg e

N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 M ICHAELM O O RE , et al., a nd M ARYE . S HEP ARD , et al., P la intif fs-A pp ella nts, v. L ISAM ADI GAN, A TTO RNEY G EN ERAL OF I LLINO IS, et al., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.2 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788

J ud ge M ic h ael S. K anne did no t part ic ipate i n the consi der-  at i on ofthe pe t i t i on f or r eh ea ri ng e n ba nc .

Appeals from the United St ates District Courts fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is and the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No s. 3: 11-cv -3134- S EM-BG C and 3:11- cv-405-WD S -PMF

— Sue E . M yer sc oughand

Wi ll iam D. Stiehl, Judg es .

O R D E R O n Ja n u ar y 8 , 201 3, d efe n d an ts -ap p elle es filed a p et iti on f orr ehear i ng e n b anc, a n d on J anuary23 , 20 13, pla i nti ff s- appell ants fi l ed answers to the pet i ti on. A vo te o fthe a ct ive m embe r s o fthe c o ur t o n whe th ert o g r an t re hear i ng e n ban cwas r eque st ed an d a maj o r i tyo fthe j ud ges have vo ted to deny the peti tion

. The peti ti on  i s there f or e D ENI ED
. J ud ge Davi d F. H am ilto n’s di sse nt fro m the denia l o f re hear i ng en ba nc, j o i ne d b y J udg es Ro vn er, W o o d a nd W illiam s, is a p p en d ed

.N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 3 H A MI L T ON, Cir cu i tJudg e, j oined by R OV NER, W OO D , a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges , di ss en ting . Ir es pec tful l y di ss en t f r o m the de ni alo fr eh ea r i nge n b an c i n the se c as es . The Suprem e C ou rt has not yetdeci ded wh etherthe postH elleri n d i v i d ua l r i g h tt o k e e p a n d b e a r a r ms a th o me unde r the Sec ond Am en dm en t ex te nds b ey o nd the hom e. The panel ’ s s pli t d ecis i on i n thes e ca ses go es f ar ther than the Suprem e Court has gone and i s th e first d e c i s i o n b y a fe d e r a l co ur to fa p p e a l s s t r i k i n gd o wn leg isla tio n res tr ict in g th e ca rry in g of ar m s in p u b lic. U n til the Su p re m e C ourtf aces the i ssue, the sta te ofthe l aw affe c tin g p eo p le in Il lin ois , W isc on sin , an d Ind ian a is an i m port ant questi on w or thy of en banc co nsi derat i on to deci de w hetherto affirm , rever se, o r re m and fo r furtherf actualdevel opm ent. W i th out und ue r epeti ti on ofJ ud ge W i l l i am s’ per suasi ve panel di sse nt, th ree poi nts deser ve em phasi s a t thi s en banc stag e o fthe proce edi ngs. F i r st, e xt en di ngthe r i g htt o b ear ar m s o ut si de th e hom e and i n t o t he pu bli c sp he re pres en ts issues very diff eren t fro m tho se i nvol ved i n the hom e i tse l f, wh i ch i s al l tha t th e S upr eme Co ur t dec i ded i n D i s t r i ctof C o lum bia v. Heller, 5 5 4 U. S

. 5 7 0 ( 2 0 0 8 ) , a nd M cD ona ld v. City of

C hic ago , 13 0 S

. Ct. 30 20 ( 2010 )

. Iwil l notr epeat the deba te i n the panel o pini ons re vi ew i ng the hi sto ric al an d em p iric al evid en c e, for th at d eb at e w as , in th e m aj o r i ty ’ s vie w, e ss en ti al l y di ct a. The c o r e o fthe panel m aj or i ty’ s r eas oni ng i s that be cause ther e i s a ne ed f o r s el f

- def ens e o ut si de th e ho m e as wel l a s i n, H eller a nd M cDonal d sh oul d extend to pu bl i c ca rr yi ng o f loa d ed firea rm s. M oorev. M adigan , 70 2 F .3d 9 33, 93 5- 38 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12)

. The l og i c has som e ap p eal, but i ts4 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788

S ee M ic h a el W ils o n, A f t erBu l l ets H i tByst anders, Prot oco l 1 Que s t i o ns , N .Y . T im es , A u g . 2 5 , 20 1 2 , avai l abl e ath t t p : //www. ny tim es.co m /20 12/08 /26/nyreg ion /by stan d ers-shoo ting -w ou nd sca used- by

- the- polic e. htm l? ( las t visit ed F eb . 19 , 20 1 3 ); C h ri s F ra n ce sc a n i, A l l N i n e By st an ders Wou n d ed i n E m pir e Sta t e Shoot i ng H i tby Pol i ce, R eu te rs , A u g . 27, 20 1 2 , a v a ila b le at http :/ /reu ters.com /article/201 2/ 08 / 27 / us - us a- s hoo t i ngem pires tat e- polic e- idU S B R E 8 7 Q 0 4 X 2 0 1 2 0 8 2 7 (lastvis it ed Feb. 19, 2013). O ne could go on indefi nit el y coll ect ing ex

am p les of law ful fir e a r m s in p u b lic be ing used b oth to cau se h a rm an d to p re v en t h a rm . si m pl i ci tyo ve r l o o k s qua li ta ti ve di ff er en ce s be twe ena pri vate h om e and pu bl i c st re ets and bui l dings that m ust be co nsi dered as w e tr y t o i nter pret Heller an d M cD ona ld

. S ee Ka ch a lsky v . Co un ty o f Westch ester, 70 1 F.3d 81, 94 ( 2d Cir. 2012). I n s o ma n y p ub l i c s e t t i n g s , c a r r y i n ga n d u s i n gfi r e a r ms pres en t l ethalr i sks to i nnocent byst anders. Yet w hen peopl e g o about thei r dail y l i ves i n pub lic place s, they ha ve n o choice ab ou t w he th er to c o n s e n t to the d an gers pose d b y fi r e a r ms i n pu b l i c . We c a n a l l c ho o s e wh e ther to vi si t ho m es w here fi re ar m s a re pre sent. To i l l ustr ate the dangers posed b y l aw ful use o f fi re ar m s in pu bl i c, co nsi der a deadl y c onfro ntati on o n the s tr eet s o fN ew Yor k Ci ty i n A ugust 2 012, wh en po l i ce c o nfr o nt ed ana r m ed m anwho ha d j us t sh o t an d ki l l ed another m an. The pol i ce office rs were w el l tr ai ned i n b o th ho w t o s ho o t a nd whe n to shoo t a nd notsho ot. The offi cer s f atal ly shotthe gunm an, but the o ffi cer s’ m an y s ho ts a lso w o unde d ni ne b y st an der s. Ii nt en d no 1 cr i ti ci sm o fthe o ffi ce r s, who c o nfr ont ed anur g en t, da n-N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 5 g e r o us s i t ua t i o n tha tfe w h ave e xp e r i e nc e d fi r s t
- ha nd

. W e wi l l a l wa y s n e e d a r me d p o l i c e o ffi c e r s , a n d s o me h ar m w ill be u n av oid ab le d es p ite th eir tra in in g, sk ill, an d e xpe r i en ce . Butc o ns i derho w m uchw ors e th e si tu
ati on o n the cro w ded st re ets o f N ew Yor k m i ght ha ve be en if sev er alc i vi l i an s, wi th o utthe o ffi ce r s’ t r aini ng but ca rr yi ng fi re ar m s l aw full y, had tr i ed to h elp w i th thei r own fi re ar m s. Unles s the S up re m e Cour t i s pre pared to em bra ce the vi ew at tr ibuted to i t bythe panel m aj or i ty, thatthe Se cond A m endm ent r i ght t o bear ar m s doe s no t depend on “ca sual ty counts,” 70 2 F

. 3d at 939, w e sh o u ld n ot assu m e tha t the l ogic of Heller e x t e n d s n a t u r a l l y a n d w i th o u tqu a l i fi c a t i o n t o fi r e a r ms i n publi c. M or eov er, the panel m aj or ity m ake s i ts const i tuti onal poi nt abo ut se l f

- defe nse o utsi de the h om e by r el yi ng o n th e nee d f or w eap ons on th e early A m erican frontier. The re l i ance m i sse s the poi nt. S ee M oore , 702 F. 3d at 936. I t woul d ha ve b ee n f o o l i shf o ra ny fr o nt i erg o ve r nm en t to pr o hibi t ca r r y i ng wea po ns f r o m ho m es te ad to tr adi ng po st
. Butwe do no t us ua l l y t es t co nstituti o na l do ct r i ne b y a s k i ngwh e the r a l l f o o l i s h l a ws w oul d b e b a nn e d. T h e r ealco nsti tuti onalquesti on i s whether ther e i s a ri ght t o bearar m s i n publi c so r i gi d that i t m ust s tr i ke d o wnd u l y e n a c t e d l a ws th a ta p p l y i n th e d o wn t o wn str eet s o fm oder n Chicag o, W ashi ngto n, o r N ew Yor k. I t nee d not be

. Se cond, despi te m y di sag re em ent with the panel m aj or i ty, i t’ s i m port ant t o keep i n m i nd wh at the panel di d notd e c i d e . T h e p a n e l maj o r i t y o p i n i o n i s n o w the6 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 l a w o fthe c i r c ui t, a nd I l l i noi s h a s 1 8 0 da y s t o de c i de how to am end i ts l aw s. Those of us i n the l ower fed eral cou rts are un d erstan d ably reluctan t to com m it to a p artic u lar st an d ar d of co n st itu tio n a l sc ru tin y t h at sh ou ld be a p p li ed to Second A m en d m en t issues after Heller an d M cD ona ld, or ev en to th e i d e a t h at th e s ta n d ar d sh ou ld b e t h e s am e fo r all iss u es . N ev er th ele ss , i t’s rea so n ab ly clear atthi s po i nttha t th e st an dar d i s m o r e demandi ng than r ati onal

-b as is r evi ew and l ess dem anding than str i ct s crutiny. The panelm aj or i ty l eave s the S tat e a g oo d d ea l of co n st itu tio n al ro om for re a s o n ab le p u b lic safetym eas ures co ncer ni ng publ i c ca rr yi ng o ffi re ar m s: (a) Illin ois w ill still be ab le t o e s t a b lish rea so n ab le l i m i ts o n who m ay ca rry a loa d ed firea rm in p u b lic. Heller i t s e l fm a d e c l e a r th a tth e r i g h tt o k e e p a n d b e a r a r ms m ay be deni ed base d on a f el ony convi c tio n or m ental i l l ness. 55 4 U.S

. at62 6; se e a l so U nited Sta tes v. Sk o ien , 61 4 F

. 3d 638 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0) ( enb an c) ( upho l di ngc o nvi cti on for poss ess i on o ffi re ar m by per son convi cted o f dom est i c vi ol ence m i sdem eanor )

. Reas onabl e r equi re m en ts f o r fi r ea r m s t r aini nga nd pr o fi ci en cy, i nc l udi ng sa f e an d r es po ns ibl e ha ndl i nga nd us e, s ho ul d wi th st an d c on st it u tio n al s c ru tin y. T h e Se c on d C irc u it re c en tly up hel d N ew Yor k’ s s tat e l aw re quir i ng “pro per cause” f or iss u an c e of a p er m it to c ar ry a gu n . Kachal s ky, 701 F. 3d 81. ( b) I l l i noi s wil l st i l l be abl e t o set r ea so n abl e l i m i ts on w here q u alifie d p er so n s m ay lega lly c ar ry fir ea rm s in p u b lic. H eller i t s e l fe nd o r s e d r e s t r i c t i o ns i n “ s e ns i ti ve” pla ces, such a s s chool s a nd go ver nm ent buil dings

. 55 4 U .S. at 6 26

. It sh ou ld n o t b e d i f f icu lt t o m ak e re as on ab leN os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 7

See D i G i aci nto v. R ector a nd Vi si t ors of G eo rgeM as on Un i v. , 2 70 4 S

. E. 2d 365 ( V a. 20 11 ) ( uphol di ng r eg ul at i on pro hibi t i ng p o sse ssi o n o f fire a rm s o n ca m p u s o f p u b lic u n iv er sit y ). ar gum ents to supp or t e xten ding that re aso ni ng to ar eas ar ound school s, courthouse s, o thergo ver nm ent b uil dings , pu bl i c uni ver si ti es, publi c l ibra ri es, hos pit al s, m edi cal 2 offi ces, publi c par ks and fo re sts , churc h es and other pla ces ofworshi p, bank s, sho pp i ng ce nter s, publi c tr ansportati o n f ac i l i ti es a nd v eh i cl es , a nd v en ue s f o r s po r ting events, c o nc er ts , a nd o th ere nt er ta i nm en t, a m o ngmany possibl e e xam ple s. ( c) Pri vate l y o w ned bar s, ni ghtcl ubs, and re st au rants al so coul d fi t into that re aso ni ng, and sure l y th e federa l C ons titution w ou ld n ot p reven t a privat e o w n e r ofa b u s i n e s s fr o m i mp o s i n ga b a n o n c a r r y i n gfi r e a r ms i n orar oun d the busi ness. S ee Georgi aCar ry. O rg, Inc . v. G eorgia , 6 8 7F

. 3 d 1 2 4 4 , 1 2 6 4

- 6 6 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 1 2 ) ( up ho l di ng st at e l aw g i ving pr i va te pr o per ty o wner s righ t to e xc l ud e fi r e a r ms)

. P l a c e s o fe mpl o y men tc o ul d p ose sim il ar i ss ue s, a nd a g ain, i t’ s ha r d t o s ee ho w the f ede ral Consti tuti on would pro hibi t a pri vate em plo yer f ro m banni ng fi re ar m s o n i ts prem i ses . ( d) The panelo pini on a l so does not preve nt I l l i noi s fro m se tt i ngr easo nabl e l i m i ts o n ho w quali fi ed pers ons m ay car ryfi re ar m s i n publi c pl aces wh er e th ey ar e no t pr ohib ited. Shoul d l oaded fi re ar m s i n publi c be car ri ed openl y? Shoul d they be c oncea l ed? Sho u ld the a nsw er diff erdepend i ng o n pla ce a nd ci rcum sta nce? Hellernot ed th at a m ajorit y of n in et ee n th -c en tu ry c ou rt s u p h eld8 N os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 prohibi ti ons on ca rr yi ng co nceal ed w eapons i n f avo r of car ry i ng w eapons openl y, 554 U

. S. at 626, b u t o p en ca r r y i ngo ffi r earm s in o urmode r n s o ci ety c anb e i nti m i dati ng and eve n dis rupti ve. (e) Fin ally , th e pa n e l op in ion , Heller, a nd M cD ona ld do not preve nt I l l i noi s fro m i m posi ng r eas onabl e l i m i ts o n w hich ar m s m ay be car ri ed i n pu bl ic. See Heller, 55 4 U. S

. a t 62 7. W e ca n b e r ea so nabl y c onfide nt tha t th e S e c o n d A me nd men tr i g h t s a r e n o tl i mi t e d t o a r ms k no wn to the F r amer s o fthe a m en dm en t, b ut a lso c o nfi d e n tth a tth e r i g ht s d o n o te x t e n d t o a l l th e a r ms tha ta mo de r n mi l i t i a mi g htn e e d. I n o th erword s, the pa ne l ’ s ho l di ngtha t th e cur r en t I l l i no i s l aws a r e to o r estri ct i ve l ea ve s r o o m f o r many r e a s o n a b l e s t e p s t o p r o t e c tp u b l i c s a f e t y . T h a tt a k e s me to my thi r d po i nt, whi ch c onc erns ho w fut ur e S ec o nd Am e nd men t l i t i g a t i o n s ho ul d pr o c e e d. Th e pa ne l dec id ed to r eve rs e di sm i ssa l s under Rule 12(b) ( 6) and to or der e ntry o fper m anent inj uncti ons aga i nst e nfo rce m en t o fthe s tate l aws . Tha t st ep pr ev en te d I l l i no i s an d the pl ai n tiff s fro m pre senting r el evantev i dence, bo th em pir i caland hi sto ri cal, i n a ge nuinel y a dvers ar i al se tt i ngs ubj ec t to c r o ss - ex ami na ti o n. The panel m aj or ity vi ew s the cur re nt I l l i noi s r est ri cti o ns a s si m pl y t o o b r o ad to s ur vi ve no matt erwhatthe em p iri cal or historical eviden ce m ight sh ow . Th e pa ne l’s re aso ni ng o n that p oi nt does notexte nd , as Ir ead i t, to future chal l enges to nar ro w er, bet ter
- tai l or ed re str i ctions su ch as th ose d escribed abov e. U nd er so m e fo rm ofi nter m edi ate co nsti tuti onalscr uti ny, wh er e court sN os. 12

- 1269 , 12

- 1788 9

w i l l n ee d to w ei gh bo th S eco nd A m endm ent r i ghts and stat e inter est s j usti fyi ng so m e r est ri cti ons on those r i g ht s, a ctua l e vi den ce o n the b ur den s, co ns eque nc es , a nd gov er nm ental i nter est s w i l l be vi tal f or sound j u d gm ent. Court s co nsi deri ng ev en legi sl ati ve f acts , as d ist in c t f r o m ad j u d ica tiv e fa c ts , ca n be n efit from tru ly advers ar i alpre senta ti on o f r elev ant e vi dence. S ee E zell v. Ci ty of

Chi cago , 6 5 1 F

. 3 d 6 8 4 , 70 9 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 1 ) ( e mphasi zi ng nee d fo r ev id ence i n apply i ng i nter m edi ate scru tiny in Secon d A m en d m en t ch all en ge). W h er e t h e la w is g e n u i n ely in d ou b t, as it is like ly t o r e mai n f o r s o me t i m e un de r the S e c o nd Amen dm en t, a t r i alc o ur t ca n do a g reat serv i ce b y e ns ur i ngthe devel opm en t o fa thor ough a nd co m ple te re cor d that pr o vi des a r el i ab l e, acc ur at e f ac tu alf o unda ti o n f o r c o nst itu tio n al a d j u d ica tio n . Th e fe d er al c o u r ts are likely to do a b et te r j o b o fc o ns tituti o na l a dj udi ca ti o n i fo ur consid er ati ons ar e ba sed o n re l i abl e f acts r atherthan hypothesi zed and ass um ed f acts
.

2- 22- 13