Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)

Just in case someone didn't understand the reference Tom Servo made:
Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indi-
ans. 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 lat-
ter. 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.
Click to expand...
 
Interesting development, Illinois Gov. Quinn announced at a press conference today that he would work with legislators to craft a concealed carry law that includes reasonable restrictions such as disallowing mentally ill individuals from carrying. He also stated that any decision to appeal the case further would be left up to the atty general Lisa Madigan.

Gov. Quinn is the smallest player in the drama, but his amendatory veto power could be annoying and delaying. Still his public position to work towards a concealed carry law is positive. His laying of the choice to appeal or not at Lisa Madigan's feet is slap at her as she and her father, Micheal Madigan the House Speaker who runs the state, have ambitions for Lisa to be the next US Senator from Illinois and another USSC loss doesn't look good on the resume. Still I doubt that will be a major influence in her decision.

Lisa and her father Mike are the big players here due to her office and his power. The Mayor of Chicago is a bit player, not as powerful as Daley was and more bark than bite in this kind of statewide politics. Lisa will have to decide and act in public soon. Mike will probably publically play his cards close to his vest. Backroom deals and state money are his tools. If Mike Madigan wanted this to happen it would be a done deal, but that ain't gonna happen. He and his daughter, the states atty, will be in the same corner for sure whatever else happens. They may put up token resistance or fight til the last dog, but I don't think they will give in.
 
I think the Illinois lawmakers will pass a law exactly like we have in California which has the effect of keeping the majority disarmed. You can see that Posner had to hold his nose on this one. At least he acknowledged that precedent compelled decision.
 
Despite Judge Posner "calling out" the 2nd Circuit in Kachalsky, it is an easy read to say that almost any type of CC permitting system would get a favorable view from him.

However, in the world of Court, should a CC law be passed by the IL Legislature, it would immediately moot the case, if AG Madigan did file for en banc, which is the course I think she would choose to go.
 
Illinois Gov. Quinn announced at a press conference today that he would work with legislators to craft a concealed carry law that includes reasonable restrictions such as disallowing mentally ill individuals from carrying.
Click to expand...
Which is something even the most lenient shall-issue states have.

Your post has some really interesting insights into Illinois politics that I was unaware of.
 
I think the Illinois lawmakers will pass a law exactly like we have in California which has the effect of keeping the majority disarmed. You can see that Posner had to hold his nose on this one. At least he acknowledged that precedent compelled decision.
Click to expand...

I expect so. It is interesting to note that CA counties and cities outside the inclusive and liberal bastions of Lost Angles and San Fran are moving as close to shall issue as they can. Sacramento County accepts "self-defense" as good cause.

The Legislature continues to search for ways to disarm citizens in every way possible, and Lost Angles City and County are virtually "no issue". Liberal elites will do their best to keep it this way, but they are losing the argument, along with people like Madigan and Quinn. Once the economic model crashes, I suspect even Lost Angles will have to reconsider. There will be no officers on the street, taxes won't cover the outstanding pension and healthcare obligations. Won't be anyone to arrest you for carrying. I would like to be wrong, of course. :eek:

Kudos to Posner for doing his job as he should, whatever he thinks personally. Reminds me of Larry Tribe's reluctant conversion on 2A from a collective to an individual right.
 
Last edited:
If the IL legislature fails to act, on day 181, the current law falls. So-called "Constitutional Carry" (Vermont style) will be the default in all of IL.
Click to expand...

An interesting observation. So what happens to someone who gets caught carrying in Illinois tomorrow, or today for that matter. The 7th has said that Illinois' failure to have provisions for any form of carry is unconstitutional. If it's unconstitutional, then the law is unenforceable. The legislature has 180 days to enact a carry statute, but the current law isn't constitutional for another 180 days, it's unconstitutional NOW. :eek:

Another thought, to stir the pot: Within the jurisdiction of the 7th Circuit, we now have a constitutional right to carry a weapon (just like the 2nd Amendment says). OK, say I have a CW permit from IA and want to carry in a state within the 7th that doesn't recognize IA permits (and doesn't issue non-resident permits). Would the law prohibiting me from carrying in that state not be unconstitutional? Would a Supreme Court ruling upholding Moore be a de-facto national CW permit? :cool:
 
Maybe I'm wrong, but if there is an appeal (and I believe there will be) I just don't see SCOTUS even hearing the appeal. They'll probably just say something like "read Heller and MacDonald." The case is certainly different than MacDonald specifically, but it's very much along the same lines. It would be difficult to justify that MacDonald was only about having a gun in your home for protection since it's obvious (and even the CA7 made reference to this) that you need protection outside your home as well.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see SCOTUS taking the appeal.
 
An interesting observation. So what happens to someone who gets caught carrying in Illinois tomorrow, or today for that matter. The 7th has said that Illinois' failure to have provisions for any form of carry is unconstitutional. If it's unconstitutional, then the law is unenforceable. The legislature has 180 days to enact a carry statute, but the current law isn't constitutional for another 180 days, it's unconstitutional NOW.
Click to expand...

The CA7 gave a stay for the current law until either 180 days is up, or another law is drafted (whichever comes first). Even though technically they called the law unconstitutional, it is still illegal to carry during the stay.
 
I doubt the NRA's guy is going to allow a California style law.

I don't think they're going to agree to a bad deal now just so they don't have to live with the current law a few more years. They seem set on getting a Florida type carry law.

I think people here are underestimating just how scary the prospect of constitutional carry is to the anti-gunners in Illinois.

And as to appealing... how does that help the gun control crowd besides stalling? Hoping one of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court retires or something and is replaced by President Obama? Yes there is a delay, but does anyone see the current court overturning Moore?

I don't...
 
One thing that people are missing with comments like
I think the Illinois lawmakers will pass a law exactly like we have in California which has the effect of keeping the majority disarmed.
Click to expand...
is that the Marjory of IL law makers are pro 2nd amendment. A bill has to pass in 180 days and the pro gun law makers are NOT going to let the anti's write the bill.

There is talk that we may see a system like that is in place in FL. 8 hour class and permit issued by the local sheriff's office.

There was a warning from a Anti to his fellow anti's while debating on the house floor the CCW bill that was up for vote last year and this is not word for word but, in a nut shell he said (There will be a time when we will not be able to place restrictions on CCW and the time is coming soon. We should pass this bill). The bill voted on last year was not a good bill for gun owners but was a good one for Anti's, we are not going to see that same bill passed in the coming months.The time for the anti's to place big restrictions on us was the day before yesterday.
 
Another thought, to stir the pot: Within the jurisdiction of the 7th Circuit, we now have a constitutional right to carry a weapon (just like the 2nd Amendment says). OK, say I have a CW permit from IA and want to carry in a state within the 7th that doesn't recognize IA permits (and doesn't issue non-resident permits). Would the law prohibiting me from carrying in that state not be unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

The 7th only encompasses IL, WI, and IN, and WI and IN recognize each other's permits.
 
"Marjory of IL law makers are pro 2nd amendment"

Good and I hope that Illinois residents get the best law possible. I don't want anyone to have to put up with what we have here in California. Fortunately, there are some counties that are essentially "shall issue" but I not in one of those.
 
Last edited:
is that the Marjory of IL law makers are pro 2nd amendment. A bill has to pass in 180 days and the pro gun law makers are NOT going to let the anti's write the bill.
Click to expand...

But what you're missing is that that majority isn't for unrestricted carry; they don't want the 180 days to run out any more than the anti-guners do. These are the people that will side with the antis in order to get a bill passed at all costs.
 
But what you're missing is that that majority isn't for unrestricted carry; they don't want the 180 days to run out any more than the anti-guners do. These are the people that will side with the antis in order to get a bill passed at all costs.
Click to expand...

Not "unrestricted" but, with classes and permits. Still a "Shall issue" and not a "May issue" bill. We (Gun owners) are aware that it's not going to be like Indiana next door but, it will be a giant step in the right direction.
 
Not "unrestricted" but, with classes and permits. Still a "Shall issue" and not a "May issue" bill. We (Gun owners) are aware that it's not going to be like Indiana next door but, it will be a giant step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

In order to get that, though, it has to do through Madigan and Quinn. They are going to make it as tough as possible to get shall issue through. When they repeatedly block attempts at a reasonable shall issue law, many of the "pro 2A" legislators will back an anti-sponsored bill just to get something through before the deadline.
 
Madigan and Quinn will do exactly what the Illinois legislature tells them to do. It's still a democracy.

Write good laws, and then make sure they are respected.


Willie

.
 
Madigan and Quinn will do exactly what the Illinois legislature tells then to do.
Click to expand...

Mike Madigan is the Illinois Speaker of the House, making him an important part of the afore mentioned legislature. Between Madigan's dirty politics and Quinn's veto, a reasonable shall issue law is going to be very difficult, if not impossible IMO.
 
In the meantime, while your politicians scheme, Alan Gura is writing a petition for grant of cert in the Kachalsky case. He will probably now wait for a decision in Woollard as long as he can, till he has to file.

Should we get a positive decision in Woollard (before Gura must file) this will create the perfect circuit split (the law of the two States being near to identical) and almost guarantees that the SCOTUS takes up the case.

If that is the case, then whatever scheme is in place, had better be a good one, or it will be a really short trip to the court for an immediate injunction against it (assuming that the Court finds in favor of Kachalsky).

If I can see this, you better believe that the ramifications are seen by the IL politicos. The anti-gun crowd is losing and they know it.

I tend to agree with Todd Vandermyde. IL gun owners hold all the cards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top