On Wednesday, I wrote about how a Wisconsin court ruled that the authorities cannot prohibit foster families from owning guns. That was fantastic news and, honestly, I was glad to see it.
Unfortunately, the day before, Cam wrote about the ruling from an Illinois court that went a little differently.
In that case, the court found that foster homes and in-home daycares were "sensitive places" and thus the people who lived there could be prohibited from owning firearms.
Two days, two cases, two neighboring states, two very different decisions.
What the heck?
Let's understand that the rules weren't substantially different in these cases. Guns could be owned, but they had to be locked up in such a manner that they were inaccessible as tools for self-defense.
So who got it right?
Well, I'm biased. I'd say Wisconsin got it right, but I'm a gun rights guy. Of course I'd say that.
Let's look at this logically, though. Let's set aside what we think the law should be and focus on what is. Granted, I'm not a lawyer, so work with me here. I knew who my parents were; they were married at the time of my birth, and so I'm working with a legal handicap here.
I kid.
Still, let's look at this through my admittedly layman's lens.
First, Illinois.
The Bruen decision did preserve the idea that some places are particularly sensitive and thus banning guns on the premises is in keeping with the Second Amendment. While I'm not thrilled with this, that's not relevant. Justice Clarence Thomas included it, but also included the fact that there are limits to such rules. New York, for example, couldn't declare the entire Island of Manhattan a sensitive place.
Since schools have long been held as sensitive places, and in-home daycares are, in many ways, schools, that would seem to fit the mold. I don't see how they can get away with this after hours in someone's home, but the Bruen decision didn't explicitly handle such a situation, which means it's up to the lower courts to figure out.
But the Wisconsin court seemed to do something a little different, and that was recognizing how the Wolford decision addresses the chain of consideration. First, all such rules that deal with the right to keep and bear arms are to be considered presumptively unconstitutional. It's then up to the state to make the case that this falls within the history and tradition of gun regulations from around the time of the founding or incorporation in the 19th century.
While sensitive places might be a thing, these are rules that deal with people's homes. The Heller decision was pretty clear that you cannot tell people they must store their firearms in such a manner that they can't use them for self-defense inside their own homes, and that's what we're seeing here in Illinois.
Now, again, I'm not a lawyer, but I honestly don't see how the Illinois court was able to basically ignore judicial precedent and declare foster homes as somehow being within the historical framework of gun control. It makes absolutely no sense to me, but my parents weren't related, so that might play a factor.
It might also disqualify me from running for Senate in Maine as a Democrat, but I digress.
I suppose we all know what actually happened. An anti-gun judge twisted what there is to reach the conclusion she wanted to reach, rather than looking at what the law demands and doing it, even if she personally disliked it.
The judge who wrote the Third Circuit's ruling on New Jersey's ban on so-called assault weapons has my respect, because while she was a Biden appointee, she still went where the law told her and others to go. The judge in Illinois didn't.
Justice is blind.
Too many judges can only see what their personal blinders allow them to see.
