Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)

Consider me confused. I thought Heller allowed the right to keep the guns at home but did not speak to a right to carry in public.

Do I get this wrong? I would hope it was the latter but :confused: .
 
Here are the juicy bits.

Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim, while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter. That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald. It is not a property right—a right to kill a houseguest who in a fit of aesthetic fury tries to slash your copy of Norman Rockwell’s painting Santa with Elves. That is not self-defense, and this case, like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense. [p. 8]
Click to expand...

Again, rational basis is off the table, and the government is required to make a "strong showing" of need to restrict carry:

In Skoien we said that the government had to make a “strong showing” that a gun ban was vital to public safety—it was not enough that the ban was “rational.” 614 F.3d at 641. Illinois has not made that strong showing—and it would have to make a stronger showing in this case than the government did in Skoien, because the curtailment of gun rights was much narrower: there the gun rights of persons convicted of domestic violence, here the gun rights of the entire law-abiding adult population of Illinois. [p. 14]
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense. Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions. Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public. [pp. 20-21]
Click to expand...
 
Congrats Illinois!


I knew you guys would get it before NJ! I'm a little jealous but this can only mean good things for the rest of us in opressed states!


WHOO HOOO!!!!

(I literally just yelled that in the middle of my office, my boss thinks I'm crazy but I couldn't care less):D:D:D
 
I think it comes down to having the right case. A confluence of the right circumstances, the plaintiffs, the law in question...

This case had 2 great plaintiffs, and Illinois law was the worst and most restrictive and arbitrary in the nation. I think it was a better case than Kachalski or Woollard..
 
I wonder if folks who have been convicted under the Illinois law of "unlawfull use of a weapon" - for doing nothing more than having it on them, will be able to have their records cleared somehow?
 
I wonder if folks who have been convicted under the Illinois law of "unlawfull use of a weapon" - for doing nothing more than having it on them, will be able to have their records cleared somehow?
Click to expand...

I would doubt that, they still broke state law... as unconstitutional as said law my be:(
 
I thought Heller allowed the right to keep the guns at home but did not speak to a right to carry in public.
Click to expand...
The arguments were confined to that, but Scalia left a few breadcrumbs on the matter, as did Alito in McDonald.

Posner's interesting on this. If we restrict the right to the home, it's a property right. If we accept the interpretation of the Supreme Court, it's about the right to self-defense, which is not limited to the home.
 
So does it go back to SCOTUS. If they don't take, then it stands and IL has to deal with it but it isn't a national precedent but confined in area.
 
Wow, congratulations to Illinois!

Thank you to everybody who fought the good fight instead of simply turning tail and running to another state. New Jersey, New York and CA next?

I sure hated reading Posner in law school, but I think I'm starting to like the guy a little bit more...
 
What do you guys think of the odds are of IL becoming just like NJ with a "Justifiable need clause" type of may issue system that basically renders it impossible to get a license?
 
Will this grant the right in the whole state or will cities still be able to pass their own bans?
Click to expand...
Nope. The bans are unconstitutional, so the state has to appeal or come up with a law that allows carry.

What that law may contain remains to be seen.
 
It's just too bad this wasn't available when the 9th heard 3 cases last week. I'd say California and Hawaii need to look closer at their laws now.
 
Folks, we're talking about the Constitution of the United States, the overturning of the IL law is incidental compared to the legal principles that are set out in this opinion.

This redifines the meaning of "to bear" in exactly the way that the Brady Campaign, LCAV and anti-gunners argued against. But a great quote from Posner in orals:

What does it mean to bear arms if there's no right to carry arms in a public place?

You don't bear arms in your house, you don't march around with a gun over your shoulder right?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top