IL Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment protects carry in public!!! Unanimous decision!

[ezkl2230]

Decision delivered today is based squarely on Heller.

As the Seventh Circuit correctly noted, neither Heller nor McDonald expressly limits the second amendment’s protections to the home. On the contrary, both decisions contain language strongly suggesting if not outright confirming that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home. Moreover, if Heller means what it says, and “individual self-defense” is indeed “the central component” of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, then it would make little sense to restrict that right to the home, as “[c]onfrontations are not limited to the home.” Indeed, Heller itself recognizes as much when it states that “the right to have arms *** was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence,” People v. Aguilar http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2013/112116.pdf

 

[jdawg]

That's good stuff right there! I'm glad the court ruled this way. It's great the IL courts have sided with the Constitution and the public. It was the only way to force the hand of the politicians.

 

[wolf_fire]

But try to get a permit.... to get a permit you need to take a 16 hour course. Problem... there are no courses, since none have been approved yet. I'd love to see how long it will take IL to "approve" of curricula sent in from would-be instructors.

*rolls eyes*

 

[Rhino]

Not exactly the type of defendant I would have chosen, but you take what you can get I guess. And it's too bad they ruled that minors have no right to possess a firearm. The defendant was 17 at the time of his arrest, so they still got him on that charge.

 

[nogods]

Good decision but don't over state it. The court upheld the conviction for possession of a firearm by a person under the age of 18, reasoning that:

Of course, in concluding that the second amendment protects the right to possess and use a firearm for self-defense outside the home, we are in no way saying that such a right is unlimited or is not subject to meaningful regulation. See infra ¶¶ 26-27. That said, we cannot escape the reality that, in this case, we are dealing not with a reasonable regulation but with a comprehensive ban. Again, in the form presently before us, section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) categorically prohibits the possession and use of an operable firearm for selfdefense outside the home. In other words, section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) amounts to a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that is specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as construed by the United States Supreme Court. In no other context would we permit this, and we will.

On the contrary, laws banning the juvenile possession of firearms have been commonplace for almost 150 years and both reflect and comport with a “longstanding practice of prohibiting certain classes of individuals from possessing firearms—those whose possession poses a particular danger to the public.” Rene, 583 F.3d at 15. We will not repeat or rehash the historical evidence set forth in these decisions. Rather, for present purposes, we need only express our agreement with the obvious and undeniable conclusion that the possession of handguns by minors is conduct that falls outside the scope of the second amendment’s protection.

...


For these reasons, we reject defendant’s second amendment challenge to section 24-3.1(a)(1) and affirm his conviction