Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)

I was puzzled at the amount of time given to the carry-in-bars question. The whole premise of it, however, was that carry is protected outside the home.

Wouldn't the legislature have to create such a law? There would have been no need for it in a state that bans carry totally.

As there are several states in which licensed or unlicensed carry is legal in bars, it would seem to be a relatively straightforward inquiry as to the frequency of firearm misuse by licensed or un-prohibited individuals. But to make that inquiry, the legislature wouod have to be truly interested in the answer, and I doubt they are.

I always chuckle a bit when the discussion turns to the idea that open carry is best because then "you know what you are dealing with", as I think Judge Posner said. What criminal, bent on nefarious activity, is going to openly carry a weapon? It's laughable.

I know a few career LE officers who have taken a lot of guns from criminals, and not one of them has ever caught a criminal with a gun IN A HOLSTER, let alone visible.
 
I believe the panel's mind is already made up, and the ban will be struck down. I suppose they're looking for boundaries, although they really don't need to go there. Perhaps they're aware of the IL carry bill that almost got through last year(and I believe didn't allow carry in "bars")?
 
On initial impression, the judges seemed very hostile to a complete ban, but several comments seemed to lead me to think they might go for some sort of intermediate-scrutiny plan. IMO, that would be an improvement, but not a "Big Win" to 2nd Amendment case law. (BIG WIN for IL residents, of course)
 
I'll go out on a limb here and say that it will probably be within 60 days. Could be less, but I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if it was much less.

The speed at which this particular appeals has gone forward, suggests that the decision will be just as speedy.
 
Judge orders a recalculation of fees in NRA case vs Chicago & Oak Park

I couldn't find a recent McDonald thread so I am throwing this in here.

I'm not sure which suit these legal fees pertain to since Alan Gura represented Otis McDonald. Maybe someone can clarify it for me.

http://www.oakpark.com/News/Article...alculate_lawyer_fees_Oak_Park_required_to_pay

But I think the good thing is that the cities will actually have to pay now. It's a good reminder to the taxpayers at a time when the mayor of Chicago continues to pursue financially risky anti-gun legislation despite recent legal setbacks.
 
I predict the court says, "the second ammendment extends outside the home."
Then Mayor Rhambo and Quinn say, "now this doesn't mean you can carry until we pass legislation blah blah blah."
Don't be surprised if those boneheads order police to continue to arrest those found to be carrying, even though they know charges will not be filed
 
The fun part will be when the 2A people hold the legislation hostage until it is actually reasonable. Payback time...

As for Quinn and Co, It would be fun to see those two spend 6 months in Federal pen for contempt of court.
 
The waiting is the hardest part - since for the first time in two decades of fighting for gun rights in Illinois - I really do have my hopes up that we may actually get a shall issue ccw law. Whilst I know that should the complete prohibition on the bearing of arms be overturned by the court (which I am very hopeful will happen) that it will be appealed- I also hope that the preassure of such a decision will force the hands of enough of the anti's to allow passage of a statewide shall issue law. So many have worked so hard for so long to get to this point. I am dying waiting for the decision. A clear win would be such a victory. Sending back to the lower courts another intermitable frustrating delay. And a clear loss a devastating blow. I think I will either be estatic or depressed and angry come August 8th.
 
Interesting article from Nortwestern U on possible carry in Illinois

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=212738

One of the things I noticed was this from Collen Daley, commenting on a possible pro-gun ruling from CA7:

We have received some feedback that it could come back in their [the plaintiff’s] favor,” said Colleen Daley, executive director for the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. “But the ruling hasn’t come down yet, so we’ll deal with it when it does.
Click to expand...



It's pretty vague, but something has energized the anti-gun politicians in Illinois so they must be taking this rumor seriously.
 
I think this crushes the "In the home" BS that the antis have been claiming

The opinion is so chock full of good stuff...

The Second Amendment states in its entirety that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (emphasis added). The right to “bear” as distinct from the right to “keep” arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of “bearing” arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.

And one doesn’t have to be a historian to realize that a right to keep and bear arms for personal self-defense in the eighteenth century could not rationally have been limited to the home. Suppose one lived in what was then the wild west—the Ohio Valley for example (for until the Louisiana Purchase the Mississippi River was the western boundary of the United States),
where there were hostile Indians. One would need from time to time to leave one’s home to obtain supplies from the nearest trading post, and en route one would be as much (probably more) at risk if unarmed as one would be in one’s home unarmed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Going to be very interesting to see what happens next. Illinois has no real choice about it though. If they appeal to SCOTUS they will lose and really "harm" the anti gun community. Another year might go by but they will lose and then it will open up a lot of other states with "strong" restrictions on CC like California and New York to lawsuits.

I have a feeling something like HB148, which has been waiting in the wings will be passed. Despite common perceptions even on a critical issue like this politicians tend to move very slow. Illinois has a lot of serious issues that need to be tackled in the coming legislative sessions so it would be a lot easier, even for the anti gun types to pass a bill like HB148 and then try to "fix" it later.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=148&GAID=11&DocTypeID=HB&SessionID=84&GA=97


It really brings me pleasure knowing Mayor Emanuel, Anita Alverez and the Madigans must be stomping around in their respective offices so angry right now.
 
I take back any nice things I ever said about Judge Williams:


http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Court-Invalidates-Illinois-Gun-Laws-183017841.html


Dissenting was Judge Ann Claire Williams, a Clinton appointee and a professor at Northwestern and John Marshall. Wrote Williams:

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.
Click to expand...
 
Posner wrote the opinion, holding that:

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.
Click to expand...

The decision is here [pdf].

Williams is correct. Scalia made it clear in Heller that the right wasn't absolute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top