Our nation spends far too much time going back and forth over issues that are crystal clear to anyone with common sense.
Thankfully, our nation’s court system is structured in such a way that common sense will ultimately rule the day.
While there’s plenty of liberal judges out there that will politicize from the bench and hand down rulings that ensure they will receive back slaps and high fives from other occupants of the liberal echo chamber, things are rather cut and dry when cases make their way up to the highest courts.
The Daily Caller passes along another example of that.
The Illinois Supreme Court rejected a state ban on possessing a firearm within 1,000 feet of a public park Thursday and said parks do not fall under the scope of “sensitive places,” Reason reports.
The state argued possessing a firearm near public parks should be illegal under the District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court decision. Heller established certain areas as gun free zones and the state believed parks should be included in that category. The Illinois Supreme court disagreed and struck down the ban.
The court said the ban would limit self-defense and failed to take law abiding citizens into account.
While the laws on the books can seem to be confusing from afar, they’re actually rather simple if you don’t spend an inordinate amount of time weaving webs aimed at getting around them.
The Illinois Supreme Court was even kind enough to clear up the confusion for those that just wouldn’t let this case go.
“We find that the 1000-foot firearm restriction … directly implicates the core right to self-defense …. [It] prohibits the carriage of weapons in public for self-defense, thereby reaching the core of the second amendment. Although the firearm restriction at issue is not a comprehensive statewide ban, like in Moore or Aguilar, the restriction is not minimal,” the court said according to Reason (emphasis theirs).
“The firearm restriction not only covers a vast number of public areas across the state, it encompasses areas this court held in Mosley to be areas where an individual enjoys second amendment protection.”
“The law functions as a categorical prohibition without providing an exception for law-abiding individuals,” the decision continues. “It is therefore a severe burden on the recognized second amendment right of self-defense.”
It’s another victory for common sense, but that doesn’t make it any less sad that things need to get to this point.
If you think about the amount of time, resources, and effort that’s wasted over arguing about things that are cut and dry, there’s a good chance you’ll walk away with a large amount of head pain.
That may be good news for the pharmaceutical companies out there, but it’s beyond sad for those that wonder why everything has to be so unnecessarily difficult.
Source: Daily Caller