Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)

Here's how it will go...gunnies to grabbers:

"You guys want at least training in place before 180 days are up? Fine. Please us! We want no more FOID. We want Chicago permanently out of the gun control biz (strong preemption). We want unlimited cutlery carry to go with our CCWs. We want full reciprocity with anything that even smells like another CCW permit. We want lock-boxes for our boomthings at any of the few places we'll let you disarm us. We want you all to do the Funky Chicken Dance in Daley Plaza. You think we're kidding? You're going to have to give us a LOT before we'll concede to training requirements and costs over $10. Because all we have to do is sit here, twiddle our thumbs and fart in your general direction and in 180 days we get constitutional carry and one hell of a party in downtown Chi-town baby. Leave your gangbanger friends behind if you know what's good for 'em."

THAT is where we're at here.
 
So with the law struck down, can I carry now? Since there isn't a law that says I can't? What law would be enforced if the existing one is unconstitutional?
 
I don't think very many people understand what constitutional carry will look like in Illinois.

The laws that the ISRA was trying to pass previously (HB148 & HB 5745) would override local ordinances.

Granted that municipal ordinances are misdemeanors, but still, the state is a patchwork of all sorts of different laws from city to city and constitutional carry wouldn't do anything to stop that.

In 180 days - if they didn't either appeal or pass a carry law - you could carry without worrying about being arrested under lllinois AUUW/UUW law, but you could be arrested in some cities for violating a city's "no firearm in a vehicle" ordinance, (or something similar) and have to pay $75, give up your firearm, and all that... and yes each individual law can be challenged. But I don't think the NRA wants constitutional carry and having to deal with a mess like that.

They want a state law that provides uniformity concerning the carrying of a firearm - for the whole state.

And if all else fails - anti-gun municipalities can always arrest you for creating a public disturbance :rolleyes:
 
Rahm said on the news that he is against carry as every police chief in the country is against such. I supposed he asked everyone.
Click to expand...
He missed at least one here in Illinois.:rolleyes: A good friend is Chief in a city of about 10,000. He is NOT opposed to concealed carry. We do live downstate, and mostly consider Chicagoland a foreign and hostile place. It is a shame too; I really do love many things about the city, if you could get rid of the corrupt politicians it could be a fine place to live. That is not a partisan political comment. We have a long and storied history of corruption that transcends party affiliation.:o
 
K-MAc is right. Rahm is full of it. A large number of police chiefs and sheriff's are for CCW. Outside of Crook County the % is above 70% in favor. The Illinois Sheriff’s Association has long been in favor of concealed carry.
 
I think Rahm's statement really shows what he cares about. Chiefs of large cities are against concealed carry, he doesn't care about anyone else.
 
What would the legal basis for this be? If you're on the freeway and get arrested for doing 75 in a 65 zone and next year that speed limit is bumped up to 75, you don't get the fine returned and the conviction expunged or deleted; the fact remains that the act was illegal at the time it was committed.
Click to expand...

The speeding ticket would be valid. The felony charge of being found with a weapon in the vehicle should be invalidated. They should be able to clear that and get reimbursed. Maybe all those 'appeals' would break the state's coffers.
Look at it like those cases where an offical screwed up DNA samples in a lab and put all cases under his/her purview in question.
I'd try to be first in line if my rights had been violated like that.
 
Waiting until 2015 for the law and regulations to be written and implemented is a farce. They can adopt any one of the existing laws of other states and be done with it, issuing permits within 90 days. I hope the law-abiding citizens of the state just start carrying, license or no license, beginning on the 4th of July.
 
I don't think very many people understand what constitutional carry will look like in Illinois.

The laws that the ISRA was trying to pass previously (HB148 & HB 5745) would override local ordinances.

Granted that municipal ordinances are misdemeanors, but still, the state is a patchwork of all sorts of different laws from city to city and constitutional carry wouldn't do anything to stop that.

In 180 days - if they didn't either appeal or pass a carry law - you could carry without worrying about being arrested under lllinois AUUW/UUW law, but you could be arrested in some cities for violating a city's "no firearm in a vehicle" ordinance, (or something similar) and have to pay $75, give up your firearm, and all that... and yes each individual law can be challenged. But I don't think the NRA wants constitutional carry and having to deal with a mess like that.

They want a state law that provides uniformity concerning the carrying of a firearm - for the whole state.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure it would be quite that bad. If, per this decision, an outright ban at the state level on carry outside the home is unconstitutional and, per McDonald, the Second Amendment not only applies to the Federal Government but is also incorporated against states and municipalities via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, then it seems to me that an outright ban at the municipal level would also be just as unconstitutional as the state-level ban.

You are, however, correct in that because IL has no pre-emption law that municipalities could throw up extra hurdles of their own short of a total ban such as extra training requirements, a special permit for the particular municipality, or mandating either OC or CC within said municipality, but the situation still wouldn't be all that much worse than trying to legally transport an unloaded firearm through said municipalities now.

It seems to me that the $64,000 question here is whether the pro-CC legislators view California-style may-issue as better or worse than Constitutional Carry. If they think that Constitutional Carry is still better than May-Issue, then it could become their trump card against the anti-CC legislators. Given the comments that I've read from pro-CC IL legislators, it seems as though what I just described is the strategy: "Either do permits shall-issue or live with no permits at all."
 
Go shall issue, and chip away, like we did in AZ. We had no CCW at all in 1993, but in 1994 we got a Shall Issue law passed. Since we had state preemption, there was no patchwork of laws to worry about, so I agree, get your Shall-Issue in place AND a preemption law, and work your way up.
I'm thrilled this happened, and hope it leads to bigger wins.
 
So in 180 days or 6 months, there will be some type of state law - finally!

Not sure why 6 months - most of the people on this section who are in law could sit down in a room and come out with a great law in 6 weeks.

Anyway, what about the Ordinances like Chicago? They were pretty quick to get an ordinance on the books for owning firearms a year or so ago.
After the 180 days, their current ordinance of no firearms outside the house, nor in your backyard, nor the front porch nor the garage (really!) will not be valid anymore. What if they do not have a new ordinance or will they for sure because they don't want to get taken to court?
 
I have no doubt that one or more delay tactics will be employed. That notwithstanding, what rich irony there would be in the two thirds pro-gun majority resisting ANY carry bill, even shall issue, with the net result being so-called constitutional carry. I realize this wouldn't play out exactly like that, because the obvious intent of the court was to allow a licensing scheme to be developed. If more time were needed, the legislature would probably get it.
 
Rahm said on the news that he is against carry as every police chief in the country is against such. I supposed he asked everyone.
Click to expand...


In the county I live in, Bureau County Illinois Sheriff John E. Thompson was interviewed in the local news paper two days ago. He is very much pro second amendment and very much in favor of citizens right to concealed carry. Still, I’m not getting my hopes up for shall issue CCW. I think it will be very limited. A few hundred permits issued, just to make it look good, then the remaining will be denied.
 
Most people believe that the IL AG will not appeal

Here is an article explaining what factors in to her decision, including of course, politics - meaning how it will affect a possible run by Lisa Madigan for governor:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_ea83f9c5-3bf0-5319-b3d5-e964d8f09b9c.html

With an appeal, Madigan could also face the risk of a high-profile defeat in the nation’s highest court.

“Number one, you’re going to lose,” says John Jackson, political scientist at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. “There’s almost no chance the Supreme Court of the United States, as it’s currently composed, is going to overturn (the ruling).

“The smartest thing (for Madigan) to do,” he said, “is to leave it alone. There’s some voters in Chicago who might not like it ... but I think they’re starting to realize they’ve lost the battle.”
Click to expand...
 
Honestly, as I see it, Atty. General Madigan has very little to gain from appealing the decision. As has been noted, she would be very unlikely to win an appeal to SCOTUS (either because SCOTUS refuses to hear the appeal at all or because they would likely rule against her) and another loss would be something of a black mark on her resume. More importantly, however, she would probably lose a lot of support from downstate where the idea of CC is popular. Remember that unlike her father, Speaker Michael Madigan, and Chicago Mayor Emmanuel who are insulated within their own districts, Lisa Madigan holds a statewide office and needs to retain at least some support from downstate in order to advance her political career as she obviously has ambition to.

It is important to remember that last year the IL legislature passed a CC bill (they just fell a few votes short of the 2/3 majority needed to override Gov. Quinn's veto) so its probably a fairly safe assumption that the majority of downstate voters, if not the majority of all IL voters, want CC. Contradicting the will of the voters is rarely a smart political move and while many in Chicago want her to appeal, I doubt she'd actually lose all that much support by failing to do so.

She could also make a fairly convincing argument that given the deep financial problems that the State of Illinois has right now that spending even more of the taxpayers' money on an unwinnable appeal makes little sense. The die is pretty much cast at this point: IL will have CC sooner or later. The only question that remains at this point is how much time, money, and headache will Springfield expend before they get there and I just don't see Atty. General Madigan having much to gain from drawing things out any more.

Come election time, I rather doubt that this is an issue Madigan's going to want to be talking about and the sooner she can get it over with, the sooner it can begin fading from voters' memories. The politically savvy move, I think, would be to not appeal and let the fight shift into the legislature. This would serve two purposes as I see it: it would get Lisa Madigan out of the issue and shift the voters' attention to the legislature rather than her.
 
Still, I’m not getting my hopes up for shall issue CCW. I think it will be very limited. A few hundred permits issued, just to make it look good, then the remaining will be denied.
Click to expand...

Mike, I wouldn't give up just yet.

Even if IL ends up with a may issue law, it may end up being effectively shall issue in places such as your county for the reason you say- your own police chief is very much in favor of the RKBA. California is a good example of this- while some places in California have the bar set so high for permit issuance that an average person has no hope of a permit, others set the bar so low that it's basically shall issue... any reason shall suffice. It depends on the sheriff. It isn't an ideal situation, but it's better than what you have now.

Even so, I would suspect that if your pro-CCW legislators dig in and stay on the same page, a shall issue bill is not as difficult to obtain as one might think. Fight the good fight.
 
There has been some misconceptions voiced in many other gun forums, and somewhat here also. Allow me to clear up those misconceptions on points of the law, as it applies in these cases.

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) apply to every circuit court.

In those rules there is a 14 day window, from the day the panel decision is posted (as "published" or "unpublished") to file a motion for en banc consideration and/or a motion for the panel to reconsider (usually both motions are made in the same filing).

In the present case (Moore/Shepard), the State has until Dec. 26th to file for en banc. Christmas being a holiday, is excluded from the count. If Lisa Madigan does not file for en banc consideration, then the 90 day clock for filing a petition for cert continues, as it started at the same time. That clock runs out on March 11th (excluding Xmas and New Years), if I have counted correctly.

Allow me to further clarify a point of law that some are misconstruing. As it stands, the law in IL is not yet unconstitutional. The panel made the following order (emphasis added):

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.
Click to expand...

This means that the cases go back to the District Courts, and the panel orders them to declare the law(s) unconstitutional and enter a permanent injunction. But the panel then added a caveat to those orders:

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.
Click to expand...

So, at the end of this 180 day period, the District Courts will take up the cases and issue their individual declarations and permanent injunctions.

Then and only then, will the law become unconstitutional.

The IL Legislature can, in the meantime, repeal and/or amend the existing law to comply with the Circuit Court's mandate. This will have the affect of mooting the cases. Unless...

They do what Chicago did in Ezell. I don't see this happening, but one never knows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top