Federal Court Strikes down Illinois' total ban


gejoslin

Illegitimi non carborundu
It' about time. Do you think the laws in Illinois will change soon?
Federal Court Strikes down Illinois' total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home or business
Fairfax, Va. – The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled today that Illinois' total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home or business is unconstitutional. The case involves lead plaintiff Mary Shepard, an Illinois resident and a trained gun owner, who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun in both Utah and Florida. The National Rifle Association is funding this case. The Illinois State Rifle Association is a co-plaintiff in this case.
“Today’s ruling is a victory for all law abiding citizens in Illinois and gun owners throughout the country,” said Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of NRA. “The court recognized that the text and history of the Second Amendment guarantee individuals the right to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense and other lawful purposes. In light of this ruling, Mary Shepard and the people of Illinois will finally be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”
On September 28, 2009, while working as the treasurer of her church, Ms. Shepard and an 83-year-old co-worker were viciously attacked and beaten by a six-foot-three-inch, 245 pound man with a violent past and a criminal record. Ms. Shepard and her co-worker were lucky to survive, as each of them suffered major injuries to the head, neck and upper body. Ms. Shepard's injuries required extensive surgeries and she continues physical therapy to this day attempting to recover from her injuries.
In today’s decision, Judge Richard Posner ruled that Illinois’ ban on carriage is unconstitutional. The Judge went on to say, “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. . . . Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk than in his apartment on the 35[SUP]th[/SUP] floor.”
"Today's ruling is a major victory for law-abiding Illinoisans—and for everyone who understands that the Second Amendment protects the right both to keep arms, and to bear arms," added Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "This ruling makes clear that Illinois cannot deny law-abiding residents the right to carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home. This is a step in the right direction for all gun owners. We know it probably won’t be the end of this case, and we’re ready to keep fighting until the courts fully protect the entire Second Amendment."
View the entire ruling Link Removed.

-NRA-
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook atwww.facebook.com/NationalRifleAssociation and on Twitter @NRA.
 

From a "local" Chicago paper:

Link Removed

SPRINGFIELD - In a huge win for gun-rights groups, a divided federal appeals court in Chicago Tuesday tossed the state's ban on carrying concealed weapons and gave Illinois' Legislature 180 days to craft a law legalizing concealed carry.

"The debate is over. We won. And there will be a statewide carry law in 2013," said Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.

In a split opinion (see below), the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling in two cases downstate that upheld the state's longstanding prohibition against carrying concealed weapons.

Illinois is the only state with an outright prohibition on concealed carry.

"We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home," Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's majority opinion.

"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," he continued.

"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," Posner wrote.

"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," he continued.

"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," Posner said.

In a minority opinion, Judge Ann Williams wrote that Illinois is within its rights to ban weapons in "sensitive places" like government buildings, churches and universities in the name of safety.

"The Illinois legislature reasonably concluded that if people are allowed to carry guns in public, the number of guns carried in public will increase, and the risk of firearms-related injury or death in public will increase as well," Williams said. "And it is also common sense that the danger is a great one; firearms are lethal."

Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who was defending the state's prohibition of concealed carry, remained silent on whether her office would appeal Tuesday's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The court gave 180 days before its decision will be returned to the lower court to be implemented. That time period allows our office to review what legal steps can be taken and enables the Legislature to consider whether it wants to take action," Madigan spokeswoman Maura Possley said.

In May 2011, gun-rights advocates lost a bid in the Illinois House to legalize concealed carry by a 65-32 vote. Seventy-one votes were necessary for passage of the legislation, House Bill 148, which was lobbied against by Gov. Pat Quinn and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

The measure, sponsored by state Rep. Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg), would have enabled Illinoisans to carry concealed weapons if they had a firearm owner's identification card and underwent a firearms education course.

Under the failed bill, permit holders could not have been a patient in a mental institution in the previous five years nor have any felony, violent misdemeanor or drug convictions in the previous 10 years.

Concealed weapons also wouldn't have been allowed under the plan at government buildings, courthouses, schools, sports arenas and stadiums, amusement parks, libraries or college campuses.

At the time of the vote, the Illinois State Police estimated that 325,000 people would taken advantage of a concealed-carry program, which was projected to raise $32 million annually for the state through license fees.

Phelps would not rule out possibly trying to move concealed carry legislation during the upcoming lame-duck legislative session, which runs from Jan. 2 through mid-day on Jan. 9. But he stopped short of saying how closely a new bill would mimic HB148.

"In that bill, there were a lot of limitations, a lot of safety guidelines, background checks. But pretty much, this court today didn't really specify where you can carry, where you can't. It just sent a mandate that Illinois has to have a concealed carry law in 180 days," he told the Chicago Sun-Times. "I think we can come to an agreement. I think we can pass sensible legislation."

Whatever form the legislation takes, Phelps said he thinks it will have a noticeable impact on Chicago's crime epidemic.

"There are a lot of people in the city of Chicago who are scared to say if they are for concealed carry. I had numerous people email and call me from Chicago and Cook County who said they wanted this day to happen -- people who couldn't say something, but maybe worked for the city or county," Phelps said.

"I think you'll see a reduction in violence because right now, the criminals know there's no one legally who can defend themselves. If I'm a gang member and I now know there's concealed carry, if I try to steal that person's bag, I'll be careful what I do because that person might have a gun."

The governor's office, meanwhile, played its cards close to the vest after Tuesday's ruling but noted Quinn's opposition to the earlier Phelps legislation.

"His opposition then stands for itself," Quinn spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said, referring to her boss. "But we're reviewing the opinion now to determine our next step."

A spokesman for House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) said he had not conferred with the top House Democrat on a possible course of action following the ruling, but an aide to Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) hinted at a lengthy legislative response time that could well go beyond the first two weeks of January.

"We're going to take the time the court has given us to carefully review the ruling and to consult with the attorney general's office before we determine what legislative action we take on concealed carry," Cullerton spokeswoman Rikeesha Phelon said.

But Vandermyde, the NRA lobbyist, cautioned that gun-rights advocates won't allow the legislative process to drag on indefinitely, and certainly not past the 180-day window established by the appeals panel.

"I can tell you right now, we'll look very dimly about people dragging their feet to sit here and say we're going to let the governor play his little game ... to drag it out for another year. If that happens, there's the probability we'll be back in court, seeking an injunction immediately. There's a cliff to this thing," Vandermyde told the Sun-Times. "You know what? We waited 20 years for this. We're tired of waiting."
 
Although the legislature has been considering expanding access to CPL and other pro-2A bills, I'm sure that Chicago politicians will look for ways to get around this ruling. After all, the president said it - AK-47s aren't killing people in Chicago (or anywhere else, for that matter); "cheap handguns" are what's killing people in his hometown. That's all the incentive they need to pursue ways to get around this ruling.
 
I think it's sorta misleading to say that Illinois is the ONLY state where cc is prohibited. I certainly wouldn't call PRHI, PRNJ, PRMD, and PRMA CC states, at least in practice.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
 
I think it's sorta misleading to say that Illinois is the ONLY state where cc is prohibited. I certainly wouldn't call PRHI, PRNJ, PRMD, and PRMA CC states, at least in practice.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Yeah, you right. But at least they're moving in the right direction. And hopefully the other states you mention will change their laws and whatever else they need changed so Americans can protect themselves and their loved ones.
It's a battle of inches sometimes.:victory:
 
I'm of two thoughts about this. While I would LOVE Illinois to have CC so that when we travel over there for the kids BB games (we play some tournaments in IL) I wouldn't have to lock my carry up in a box while in the state, I don't like the "way" this happened. I am a HUGE states rights advocate and believe that ANY form of federal government should not be allowed to change state rulings where not enumerated in the constitution. "The people" are lazy enough already, they need to have to work within to enact the changes needed so they appreciate their freedoms more.
 
What's wrong with the court pointing out to the state that it's violating the "shall not be infringed" concept?
 
They'll pass some onerous law, like "only handguns of this caliber or less and magazines of not more than X rounds, permit holders may only carry one spare magazine. Holsters must be blah blah...all applicants must pass an eight hour course and blah blah live fire" and the permit process will be a nightmare. It takes 57 days on average just to get a FOID card despite the statute stating a made of 30 days. This smells like may issue and the ISP will control the entire process, with two people processing applications. I wouldn't be surprised if the statute requires a waiver of all medical records but doesn't state the disqualifiers...HB148 requires waiver of mental health records, doesn't state disqualifiers just says that you may be disqualified. WAYYYY too much latitude and whatever the vomit out of Springfield will end up back in front of the Seventh Circuit. Not a chance in hell this'll be over in 180 days or less.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2
 
I am a HUGE states rights advocate and believe that ANY form of federal government should not be allowed to change state rulings where not enumerated in the constitution. "The people" are lazy enough already, they need to have to work within to enact the changes needed so they appreciate their freedoms more.

It's a Constitutional issue therefore it should be heard by a federal court. If this were an actual state issue then I'd agree not to mention a federal court couldn't hear the case anyway. You don't live in Illinois, you do not get how Cook County, specifically Chicago dictates EVERYTHING and craps on the rest of the state (most taxpayer money goes to Crook County while the rest of the state literally falls apart). It (and 2 other counties) decided the last gubernatorial race. It decides U.S. Senate races and awards electoral votes to the Dem candidate in Presidential races. If you expect the people of Chicago to say "we don't want any more free stuff" and fire all of those scumbags on Springfield then we'll both be six feet under before that ever happens. With a 25% approval rating, Quinn will be gone come 2015 but the Machine will still own the state house. Speaker Madigan will leave Springfield eventually...in a casket. Then be replaced by his right hand lackey, status quo maintained.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2
 
Now they will attempt to create some laws that will make it almost impossible for the average citizen to meet. Then they will say we allow conceal carry but you have to meet these requirements... End result I see another court case coming!
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,259
Members
74,964
Latest member
sigsag1
Back
Top