Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)

It's essentially a list of all places outside the home where most people assemble - for work, commerce, recreation, etc. So, according to them, the only place you can have a gun anyway is inside your home.
Click to expand...
This is what concerns me. For example, Georgia used to have a law prohibiting carry at "public gatherings." What's a public gathering? Pretty much anything an official decides it is.

That could be a restaurant, sporting event, political rally, or just three of us talking on the street. The dissenting opinion seems to have gotten that idea. By calling a place "sensitive" under the Heller dicta, you could ban carry quite easily and still keep the mantle of respecting the Constitution.

Keep a close eye out for rhetoric along those lines.
 
Is not the nature of law to encapsulate all the possibilities and address them?

I don't buy the dissenters just offering up a vague line of "public gatherings". Then we could offer a line where it is legal to conceal carry anywhere (outside of public assembly - which is defined in the zoning code) that you feel you are in danger. Two can play this game.

Just look at WI and be done with it!

Concealed Carry and Schools

No one, including a concealed-carry licensee, can carry a firearm in or on the grounds of a school
"School grounds" include athletic fields, school buildings, recreation areas and any property owned, used or operated for school administration
It is a misdemeanor to carry firearms within 1,000 feet of school grounds without a concealed-carry license
Firearms may not be carried into public college and university buildings if the institution has posted a ban on concealed-carry weapons
Concealed Carry and Taverns

A "tavern" is any establishment that sells alcohol for consumption on the premises
It is illegal for concealed-carry license holders to be armed in taverns if they have consumed alcohol
A license holder faces up to 9 months in prison and a $10,000 fine if caught armed and intoxicated
Concealed Carry and Government Buildings

Firearms cannot be carried in any portion of a building that is a police station, sheriff‘s office, state patrol station, or the office of a Division of Criminal Investigation special agent of DOJ
Firearms cannot be carried in any portion of a building that is a county, state, or federal courthouse
Firearms cannot be carried in any portion of a building that is a municipal courtroom if court is in session.
Firearms cannot be carried in any portion of a building that is a prison, jail, house of correction, or secured correctional facility
Click to expand...


There, I just did it for them. Just decide about public transportation? Anyone know what other major cities do for this.? I am not saying either way, but I think it would be similar to assembly so would be banned as well and probably for the best.
 
No that wont work because then you will get some crap like. Cant carry near a public road or whatever. I get that they could be specific but the antis have some special kind of brain damage or something.. They will always seek the widest possible prohibition for anyone who is not one of them.
 
Anti-gun politicians in Illinois have begun to construct their gun control laws somewhat along the lines laid out by the diseenting opinion.

I guess some justices on CA7 like giving pro-bono legal advice disguised as a dissenting opinion, at least for causes that they believe in.

From what I understand, the anti-gunners (mostly Chicago machine politicians) buried the NRA bill in committee and have put forth a shell bill which doesn't say much of anything but will be filled in with amendments.

So anyway, here is an amendment that looks an awfull lot like what Tom Servo talked about, with the exception that there is a bit of a qualifier on what a gathering is:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ful...d=HB&LegID=71607&DocNum=1155&GAID=12&Session=

There are further amendments which prohibit carrying a handgun just about everyplace other than your own property:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ful...d=HB&LegID=71607&DocNum=1155&GAID=12&Session=

Other places that are also prohibited:

your vehicle
restaurants
truck stops
any place that has video gaming to include but not limited to casinos
church, temple, or other place of worship
zoos
parks
amusement parks
museums
schools, colleges, daycare
state government buildings
libraries
hospitals and mental health clinics
public transportation

Combine these with the exclusion on private property I can't really see anywhere an Illinois citizen can carry.

Maybe walking or riding a bike down the street. As long as you just ride on the street and don't actually arrive at a destination.

As far as I can tell, this collection of amendments re-create the current Illinois UUW law in scope and totality, but they do it one explicitly named location or type of location at a time.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
 
Last edited:
Each one of their amendments references Heller, McDonald and Moore:

The United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia
v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) has recognized
that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
does not confer an unlimited right and that states may prohibit
the carrying of firearms in sensitive places. The Supreme Court
stated in the Heller decision: "Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to
cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of
firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the
carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and
government buildings . . ."

The Supreme Court also noted in a footnote referencing this statement in the Heller decision that: "We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."

This recognition was reiterated by the U. S.
Supreme Court in McDonald v. the City of Chicago, 561 U.S.
3025, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010), which incorporated the Second
Amendment against state action. The Supreme Court again stated:
"We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt
on such longstanding regulatory measures as "prohibitions on
the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,"
"laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings . . . We repeat those
assurances here."

Further, the federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d. 933 (7th Cir., 2012) cited the "sensitive place" statement of the Supreme Court in both the Heller and McDonald decisions and concluded: "That a legislature can forbid the carrying of firearms in schools and government buildings means that any right to possess a gun for self-defense outside the home is not absolute, and it is not absolute by the Supreme Court's own terms." Therefore, the General Assembly finds that the place or location set forth in subsection (a) of this Section is a sensitive place and the prohibition on the carrying of firearms will promote public safety in this sensitive place.".
Click to expand...

Maybe they think it makes their proposed laws chock full of constitutional goodness or something.
 
Availaility of filings and judgments

I am new to The Firing Line and trying to follow the jurisprudence on 2A. I do not have access to Lexis, Westlaw or even a convenient law library.

I love the resources here in the L &CR forum, but I have noticed that older postings have links that are no longer functioning.

For example:

June 8, 2012, 07:24 PM #155
Al Norris
Staff

Judges are POSNER (Reagan), FLAUM (Reagan), WILLIAMS (Clinton).

Oral Argument audio is available...

Website:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...yr=12&num=1269

Direct link to the 7MB, 44 minute MP3:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...2-1269_001.mp3

Seen a few other reviews, but I'm just starting to listen...
Click to expand...

At one point in my review I listened to Alan Gura say that an MP3 was no longer available at a court website, but that it was available at sites maintained by friends in the 2A community.

Do you know of links that maintain older arguments if interest of people like myself interested in Jurisprudence?

I would like to get up to date on the issues quickly. An organized list of relevant and up to date links would be helpful.

Thanks for all who have contributed to this forum. I am glad to learn of these efforts in supporting the 2A.
 
MTGreen,

If you were to go to the 7th's home page (http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/), you would see a link to oral arguments (it's a new feature at the CA7). That leads you to: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp You will see two boxes to fill in the case number. Plug 12 into the first box and 1269 into the next box, then click on the List Case(s) button. 12-1269 is the case number of the Moore case. You will see the file appear. Click on that to listen or right click to download the file and listen later.

As it stands, the moved link is: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/2012/migrated.orig.12-1269_06_08_2012.mp3

There is a problem with the Federal Courts. They do not all do the same things or even in the same way. One of the circuits (CA2? I forget, offhand), requires that you pay to get the audio file and it takes several weeks.... They mail it to you! The CADC won't even release the audio until after the case is closed! Each Federal Circuit does things in its own manner. Some are very user and computer friendly, others... not so much.

Oh, and welcome to TFL!
 
Level of Judicial Scrutiny

Please forgive the late entry into this discussion, but I believe the appropriate level of scrutiny has not been clearly determined and would like to discuss the following:

June 8, 2012, 09:14 PM #158
Al Norris
Staff
I think that Alan should have taken the lead in the discussion (and cut Posner off at the knees) over bars and liquor stores by simply saying, "Yes, the State may place limits on carry in those areas." In other words, throw it under the bus and attack this in another venue some other day (Classic Example: VCDL and what they did in Virginia).
Click to expand...

The post prior, #157, expressed amazement at the tangents, but I believe the Courts questioning in oral arguments was important and worthy of keeping out from under the bus.

If Alan should have taken a different tack, it would be clearly and repeatedly, if necessary, stating the standard he would like the court to adopt, then showing how it could address the Court's concerns.

Allen did respond with: establish the right, then place time, place and manner restrictions -perhaps weighing regulatory interests vs. individual interests using some form of means ends analysis.

But then he got bogged down in the meaning of "Bar." I think a better approach would have been to state something similar to his Kachalsky Response Brief:

The intermediate scrutiny pattern is clear. Even where the law’s
constitutionality is not in doubt, federal appellate courts are open to as-applied challenges, and demand particularized evidence and findings
that specifically-targeted categories of people are, in fact,
untrustworthy with firearms. Where regulations sweep too broadly,
being aimed at the general public or categories of individuals that
cannot be claimed as dangerous, courts will invalidate the laws.
pg 46
Click to expand...

The point being not the definition of "Bar" but that functional jurisprudence can be established in accordance with both the fundamental right to keep and bear arms and legitimate regulations.
 
It isn't Quinn's choice. It's Lisa Madigan's choice to appeal. If she sees a potential boost in being seen as gun friendly (compared to Quinn), then Quinn is going to have to pound sand. He might as well wish for a pony; he'd be more likely to get it.

Not living in IL I don't have as clear a picture of the politics over there, but it sure appears to me that principle on these issues means quite a bit less than potential for votes (to the big name players, at least). Quinn is a die hard anti-gun fellow, right up there with Daley, Rahm Emmanuel, and even in the stripe of Bloomberg. The Madigans are hardly friends to the RKBA, but if tossing pro-gun groups a bone means gaining the governor's mansion then that's what they'll do.
 
MTGreen-I would have said (referring to bars) that the "sensitive places" mentioned in Heller referred to government locations, and as far as I know governments typically don't own bars.
 
AG Madigan is waiting to see what the Legislature and the Governor do first. If a law is passed, that will moot the case and no appeal will be necessary. She can afford to wait. As I understand it, since the final opinion/ injunction of the circuit Court will not issue until June, her time to petition for cert will not start to run until then. If no law is passed, she will file for cert and request an immediate stay from SCOTUS of an injunction issued by the lower court. I don't know whether that will create a timing problem as somewhere n there is when the SCOTUS ends its session, and that may effect whether she will even be able to get a stay--the justices tend to flee DC to farflung parts about then. It will be interesting to watch developments.

Also remember that the injuction, should it issue, is not the end all be all for concealed carry in Illinois. It will simply preclude the state from enforcing the current absolute ban--the state always has the option of passing a carry law at a later time, but there will just be a period of "anarchy" (what others would call freedom) until it does. The other side of the political equation, however, is that the Legislature has enough votes to pass a shall issue bill, defeat a may issue bill, and maybe, just maybe, have enough votes to overcome a veto by the Governor. They were only two votes shy last year.

Since I have no crystal ball, I will just have to wait out the next few months with everybody else!
 
since the final opinion/ injunction of the circuit Court will not issue until June, her time to petition for cert will not start to run until then.
Click to expand...

I believe that the 90 timer for time to file for cert started when en banc was denied. So it is ruuning now

I don't have the exact date, but time to file for cert would run out sometime around May 23.
 
The clock running upon denial of an en banc petition would normally be the case, as the case is then "final" as to the court of appeals. But here we have the unusual circumstance that the Court of Appeal has stayed issuance of its decree for 180 days; and if the state passes a CC law, the decision will be mooted and no injunction will issue. Hence there is no "final determination" in the Court of Appeals on the merits until June when an injunction order issues. At least this is my understanding based on the language of the opinion; the Illinois ban remains in effect until mid June when a decree issues.

See 28 USCA section 1254: "Cases in the courts of appeals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by the following methods: (1) By writ of certiorari granted upon the petition of any party to a civil proceeding to any civil or criminal case, before or after rendition of judgment or decree." Again, the Seventh has issued its opinion but stayed rendition of its decree, so that the clock, to my mind, hasn't started to run.

The timing issue is that the current Supreme Court session will end in June, and the court does not reconvene until October, and since the issuance of a stay is mandatory if Madigan wants to preserve the status quo, getting enough justices together to have one issued after mid June would appear to be problematic.
 
Sensitive places

Press1280 - Thanks for the comment.

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Heller at 2816-2817
Click to expand...

"Sensitive places such as schools and governments buildings" identifies anything deemed "sensitive" with schools and government buildings being examples not the full scope.

The issue of ownership seems irrelevant except for private property rights and issues of trespass. Would the county dump be a sensitive place because the government owns it? Would Virginia ABC stores operated by the government be sensitive if the government owned the site but not sensitive if it leased the building?

We may like to provide a narrow reading of Heller's sensitive places comment and hope a court agrees, but providing a clear, workable and constitutional standard of review that a lower court will adopt is a favorable way to put the standard before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in Heller clearly chose not to state a standard of review of any "sensitive places" determination, as with the other limiting factors addressed, but a standard must be established. Those iin support of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms should be consistently working to establish a standard of review that will protect such rights from certain efforts to narrow it.
 
Last edited:
I think it would be difficult for the government to prohibit carry at a private establishment where the owner wants carry, even though I know some states do it in churches for example. However, in those cases, I would say the 2A probably wouldn't be the avenue of attack.
 
"Sensitive places such as schools and governments buildings" identifies anything deemed "sensitive" with schools and government buildings being examples not the full scope.
Click to expand...
We do have some confusion on that, with the 11th Circuit recently ruling that churches fall under the aegis of "sensitive places," a conclusion that was echoed by the dissent in the recent Madigan case. The implication is that the right to carry can be watered down by arbitrarily declaring many places to be "sensitive" and therefore off-limits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top