Moreover, Posner writes, the main purpose of Kachalsky’s inside/outside distinction was to justify intermediate scrutiny for restrictions on guns outside the home. In Madigan, “our analysis is not based on degrees of scrutiny, but on Illinois’s failure to justify the most restrictive gun law of any of the 50 states.” [Study tip for law students: 3-tier scrutiny doesn't explain everything. If a government prohibited everyone from speaking out loud in public places, a court does not need to use strict or intermediate scrutiny to decide if the ban is constitutional. Blanket bans on speaking in public places are per se void, and so are blanket bans on bearing arms in public places.]I'm surprised at how well, duh all this legal analysis is. The Left has twisted itself into knots to "prove" that the Constitution doesn't say what it plainly says. The courts are now saying that up is up and down is down (and that "keep and bear" is "keep and bear"). Sanity is a refreshing change.
I'll be very interested to see how the Illinois Legislature handles this with the 180 day stay. A sizable majority of the Legislators voted to allow concealed carry, so there's a decently strong bloc of support. But what's interesting is that the laws prohibiting the carry of firearms will be void come next June. If enough Legislators choose to do nothing, then no replacement law will pass and there will be no laws prohibiting open or concealed carry. This has put a possible minority view in a very strong position. It would be cool to see the Illinois gun grabbers hoist on their own petard, with their insanely restrictive outright ban leading to Constitutional Carry.