Jump to content


Photo

People vs Chariez - IL Supreme Court - Ban on Carrying Guns Within 1,000 Feet of Park Struck Down


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#1 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 15,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 01 February 2018 - 02:43 PM

On November 5, 2015, defendant filed a postconviction petition, seeking to vacate the conviction on the basis that the statute was unconstitutional under the second amendment to the United States Constitution. U.S. Const., amend. II
The circuit court heard arguments by counsel for defendant and the State regarding
defendant’s petition for relief. At the hearing, defendant argued that an individual
who is barred from carrying a firearm within 1000 feet of the many locations listedin section 24-1©(1.5) of the UUW statute is essentially barred from carrying a firearm in public. Therefore, counsel reasoned, section 24-1©(1.5) was more closely akin to a blanket prohibition than a restriction on carrying a gun in certain sensitive places. In response, the State argued that the firearm restriction is not a blanket prohibition because it prevents people from carrying firearms only in certain proscribed areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://reason.com/vo...medium=facebook

 

We certainly accept the general proposition that preventing crime and protecting children are important public concerns. After all, "[g]uns are inherently dangerous instrumentalities." The State, however, cannot simply invoke these interests in a general manner and expect to satisfy its burden.... [T]he State provides no evidentiary support for its claims that prohibiting firearms within 1000 feet of a public park would reduce the risks it identifies. Without specific data or other meaningful evidence, we see no direct correlation between the information the State provides and its assertion that a 1000-foot firearm ban around a public park protects children, as well as other vulnerable persons, from firearm violence....
There is another flaw in the State's position. The State claims that the restriction is not overly burdensome because there are areas throughout Illinois where one could exercise their core second amendment right.... Indeed an individual can preserve an undiminished right of self-defense by not entering one of the restricted areas. But the State conceded at oral argument that the 1000-foot firearm restriction zone around a public park would effectively prohibit the possession of a firearm for self-defense within a vast majority of the acreage in the city of Chicago because there are more than 600 parks in the city. Aside from the sheer number of locations and public areas that would qualify under the law, not only in the City of Chicago, but throughout Illinois, the most troubling aspect is the lack of any notification where the 1000-foot restriction zone starts and where it would end.

Innocent behavior could swiftly be transformed into culpable conduct if an individual unknowingly crosses into a firearm restriction zone. The result could create a chilling effect on the second amendment when an otherwise law-abiding individual may inadvertently violate the 1000-foot firearm-restricted zones by just turning a street corner. Likewise, in response to a question at oral argument, the State conceded that an individual who lives within 1000 feet of a public park would violate [the law] every time that individual possessed a firearm for self-defense and walked to his or her vehicle parked on a public street.

To remain in compliance with the law, the State said that the individual would need to disassemble his or her firearm and place it in a case before entering the restricted zone. This requirement, however, renders the ability to defend oneself inoperable and is in direct contradiction to this court's decisions in Aguilar, which recognized that the right to carry firearms for self-defense may be especially important when traveling outside of the home, and perhaps even more important than while at home. Moreover, the State's proposition conflicts with Heller's decision that struck down the requirement that firearms be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" because it "makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense."


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#2 KingWalleye

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 724 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 11

Posted 01 February 2018 - 02:59 PM

This is a major advance for 2A.

Now, let's start getting something done on public transportation and the city's ban on anywhere that has a liquor license.
A Mariano's store shouldn't be a prohibited place.

#3 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,213 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 01 February 2018 - 03:24 PM

what does this mean for concealed carry IN a public park?

#4 Hipshot Percussion

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,668 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 14

Posted 01 February 2018 - 03:36 PM

I have no idea just what this means for us, but...

 

YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!


“I have fought the good fight to the end; I have run the race to the finish: I have kept the faith."  Timothy Chapter 4 verse 7

 

"Legitimate self-defense has absolutely nothing to do with the criminal misuse of guns."   Gerald Vernon, veteran firearms instructor

 

New Gunner Journal

 


#5 Jeffrey

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,671 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 08

Posted 01 February 2018 - 03:41 PM

This is a major advance for 2A.

Now, let's start getting something done on public transportation and the city's ban on anywhere that has a liquor license.
A Mariano's store shouldn't be a prohibited place.

The 4 different Mariano's that I visit regularly are not prohibited, but I understand your point.


...and justice for all

YOUR WALLET, the only place Democrats care to drill

#6 bmyers

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,840 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 01 February 2018 - 03:41 PM

Another good ruling for us



#7 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 15,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 01 February 2018 - 03:45 PM

No, it does not address concealed carry IN public parks but it gets us closer to the whole subject of  what are 'sensitive places'. A 1,000 ft. restriction around a 'sensitive place' does not qualify.  

 

I believe it also moves us farther along the scrutiny - intermediate scrutiny - strict scrutiny curve.  Here the court chose 'heightened intermediate scrutiny"., which would be between intermediate and strict.  The IL Supreme Court is making the state prove their frequently used claim that restricting the right to carry "is for the  children".  This is what we want to see.


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#8 SycamoreRuger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Joined: 16-April 16

Posted 01 February 2018 - 03:46 PM

I have no idea just what this means for us, but...

 

YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!

 

The opinion should benefit Chicagoans the most

 

The 25-page opinion "...notes Chicago has over 600 city parks, so a 1,000-foot restrictive zone would bar the possession of legal guns in vast areas."

http://foxillinois.c...nconstitutional



#9 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 15,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 01 February 2018 - 03:47 PM

No, it does not address concealed carry IN public parks but it gets us closer to the whole subject of  what are 'sensitive places'. A 1,000 ft. restriction around a 'sensitive place' does not qualify.  

 

I believe it also moves us farther along the scrutiny - intermediate scrutiny - strict scrutiny curve.  Here the court chose 'heightened intermediate scrutiny"., which would be between intermediate and strict.  The IL Supreme Court is making the state prove their frequently used claim that restricting the right to carry "is for the  children".  This is what we want to see.


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#10 Blackbeard

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,351 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 09

Posted 01 February 2018 - 04:28 PM

Did they add this 1000 foot zone after CCW passed?  How have I never heard about it?


Edited by Blackbeard, 01 February 2018 - 04:28 PM.

Blackbeard is not an attorney.  All comments posted are the views of Blackbeard alone and do not necessarily represent those of Illinois Carry™ or of any sane person.  For the love of God, please ignore any advice he has given.


#11 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,319 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 01 February 2018 - 04:41 PM

Is there a link somewhere to the actual written opinion. I am interested in reading it.

NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Retired Professional Firefighter / Paramedic


#12 lawman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 14

Posted 01 February 2018 - 04:47 PM

It is in the unlawful use of weapons statute.  The opinion is on the Illinois Supreme Court website.



#13 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 15,222 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 01 February 2018 - 04:48 PM

Is there a link somewhere to the actual written opinion. I am interested in reading it.


Go to the article, link to ruling should be in first paragraph.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#14 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,319 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 01 February 2018 - 04:52 PM

Is there a link somewhere to the actual written opinion. I am interested in reading it.


Go to the article, link to ruling should be in first paragraph.

Got it Thank you.

NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Retired Professional Firefighter / Paramedic


#15 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,319 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 01 February 2018 - 06:01 PM

Very interesting read. It's a shame that Mr. Chariez didn't have standing to challenge all of the specific locations with the 1,000 foot restriction.

By reading the opinion,I believe that the other locations if challenged by someone with standing would also be found facially unconstitutional.

NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Retired Professional Firefighter / Paramedic


#16 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,378 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 01 February 2018 - 06:24 PM

Did they add this 1000 foot zone after CCW passed?  How have I never heard about it?


I think it was in the UUW statute well before the FCCA was enacted into law.

The 1000’ zone restriction on firearms specified in 720 ILCS 5/24-1 ( c ) (1.5) does not apply to CCL holders or to those transporting a firearm legally, which is likely why this was unfamiliar to you.
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#17 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 12,865 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 01 February 2018 - 06:33 PM

The bad part of this is that the judge should have struck down the statute because it doesn't pass Strict Scrutiny, but instead struck it down using Rational Basis.

 

Which is to say that they struck it down because the state didn't offer enough evidence that the law does what it was intended to do.  That should be irrelevant.  The law must pass all three criteria under Strict Scrutiny:

 

The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest.   

The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.  

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. 

 

The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest.   The Illinois law fails right here if examined with strict scrutiny.  One thousand feet is simply arbitrary, and not narrowly tailored - end of story.  Second Amendment cases should not be judged using Rational Basis - period !


Edited by C0untZer0, 01 February 2018 - 06:35 PM.

 

Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.
- N. A. Halkides -
 
“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters” 
- Daniel Webster -
 
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. 
- H. L. Mencken -
 
“Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."

 


#18 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,707 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 01 February 2018 - 06:56 PM

The bad part of this is that the judge should have struck down the statute because it doesn't pass Strict Scrutiny, but instead struck it down using Rational Basis.
 
Which is to say that they struck it down because the state didn't offer enough evidence that the law does what it was intended to do.  That should be irrelevant.  The law must pass all three criteria under Strict Scrutiny:
 
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest.   
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.  
It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. 
 
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest.   The Illinois law fails right here if examined with strict scrutiny.  One thousand feet is simply arbitrary, and not narrowly tailored - end of story.  Second Amendment cases should not be judged using Rational Basis - period !


If the law was struck down under rational basis that is actually a good thing. If a law can’t survive the lower standard there is no need to consider anything Stricter.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#19 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 12,865 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 01 February 2018 - 08:15 PM

On the one hand it certainly is an indication that these perimeter type bans are done for if they can't even pass muster for Rational Basis - on the other hand, a different judge may have ruled differently.

 

Rational basis was used to justify May Issue in Woollard.  If ever anyone had good reason to carry a handgun, it was Raymond Woollard.  You really never know how it will turn out.  Another judge might say that banning firearms within 1000 feet of a park is a rational thing to do if society wants to protect the lives of park-goers.

 

If the Supreme Court makes it known that judges should be applying Strict Scrutiny to any gun control case - that will go a long way toward overturning Second Amendment infringements like onerous fees (Kwong) and May Issue (Woollard)


 

Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.
- N. A. Halkides -
 
“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters” 
- Daniel Webster -
 
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. 
- H. L. Mencken -
 
“Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."

 


#20 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 12,865 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 01 February 2018 - 08:30 PM

I believe it also moves us farther along the scrutiny - intermediate scrutiny - strict scrutiny curve.  Here the court chose 'heightened intermediate scrutiny"., which would be between intermediate and strict.  The IL Supreme Court is making the state prove their frequently used claim that restricting the right to carry "is for the  children".  

 

 

What makes you say the court applied this scrutiny to the case?

 

It seems to me that the state made the claim that the 1000 foot law was to save the life of children in the park and the judge simply said the state didn't prove that the law did.


Edited by C0untZer0, 01 February 2018 - 08:30 PM.

 

Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.
- N. A. Halkides -
 
“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters” 
- Daniel Webster -
 
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. 
- H. L. Mencken -
 
“Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."

 


#21 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 12,865 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 01 February 2018 - 08:52 PM

Well, I made my statements above just based on the exerpts provided, but in the actual ruling Chief Justice Karmeier says:

 

We, however, need not address whether the 1000-foot firearm restriction falls outside of the ambit of the second amendment because we agree with the approach taken by other courts that assume some level of scrutiny must apply to Heller’s “presumptively lawful” regulations. 

(Emphasis mine)

 

He also says:

 

Applying this framework to the law at issue here requires an initial determination of where on the sliding scale of intermediate scrutiny the law should e analyzed. To answer this question, our first task is to determine the breadth of the law and the severity of its burden on the second amendment.   

 

(Again - emphasis mine)

 

http://www.illinoisc...2018/121417.pdf

 

So the case wasn't decided on Rational Basis, but rather Intermediate Scrutiny.


Edited by C0untZer0, 01 February 2018 - 09:03 PM.

 

Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.
- N. A. Halkides -
 
“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters” 
- Daniel Webster -
 
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. 
- H. L. Mencken -
 
“Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."

 


#22 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,943 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 01 February 2018 - 09:01 PM

Am I missing something here? If the 1000 foot rule didn't apply to those carrying under the FCCA, and it didn't apply to someone legally transporting with a FOID card, what did this do for us? Looks to me like it just removed an enhanced penalty for someone carrying illegally.

** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member

** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender

** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member

** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

 


#23 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 12,865 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 01 February 2018 - 09:14 PM

Technically yes

 

It removed enhanced penalties.

 

I think it eliminates distance perimeters as a tool for gun control - which had been struck down already in Ezell.  I think this completelytakes that insidious tool completely out of the tool box of gun-hating lawmakers like Don Harmon, Kathleen Willis, Barbara Flynn Currie, Sara Feigenholtz, Julie Morrison, Laura Fine, Laura Murphy, Antonio Muñoz, Ira Silverstein, Kelly Cassidy, Kelly Burke, Scott Drury, Juliana Stratton and others.

 

Only Scott Drury would forward the notion that "We don't know yet for sure if it is or isn't unconstitutional."


Edited by C0untZer0, 01 February 2018 - 09:15 PM.

 

Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.
- N. A. Halkides -
 
“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters” 
- Daniel Webster -
 
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. 
- H. L. Mencken -
 
“Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."

 


#24 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 12,865 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 01 February 2018 - 09:26 PM

We should all be thanking Rhonda Ezell again. The precedent set in Ezell was sited in this case to strike down the 1000-foot restriction:

 

 

In fact, the 1000-foot firearm restriction not only directly implicates the core right to self-defense, it does so more severely than the regulations at issue in the Ezell cases. That is so because section 24-1(a)(4), ©(1.5) of the UUW statute prohibits the carriage of weapons in public for self-defense, thereby reaching the core of the second amendment. While in the Ezell cases, the laws only affected a right (maintain firearm proficiency) that was merely a “corollary” to the right to possess firearms for self-defense.
 

 

Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.
- N. A. Halkides -
 
“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters” 
- Daniel Webster -
 
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. 
- H. L. Mencken -
 
“Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."

 


#25 JTHunter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 999 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 13

Posted 01 February 2018 - 10:18 PM

Here are some more links to news stories about this.

 

http://reason.com/vo...in-1000-feet-of

 

http://www.chicagotr...-story,amp.html

 

https://www.washingt...m=.b3822c2c1d84

 

http://www.sj-r.com/...nconstitutional

 

http://dailycaller.c...e-court-ruling/


“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” - - Abraham Lincoln

“Small minds adhere to the letter of the law; great minds dispense Justice.” - - S. C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Life member NAHC, Endowment member NRA

#26 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,873 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 02 February 2018 - 06:01 AM

what does this mean for concealed carry IN a public park?


Given the whole ânear a public parkâ was completely struck down from UUW, I would think a challenge to the âin public parkâ prohibition for CCL holders should be an easy challenge. The court has essentially said public parks are not likely âsensitive placesâ under Heller.

Edited by RoadyRunner, 02 February 2018 - 06:05 AM.

IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#27 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 02 February 2018 - 08:29 AM

what does this mean for concealed carry IN a public park?


Still banned. This case does not touch that prohibition. It is a good stepping stone, however but the IL SC ruled that banning carry within 1k ft of public parks effectively bans all carry outside the home in large cities like Chicago. The exclusion zone runs afoul of Moore, Aguilar and its progeny, Heller, and McDonald. This court correctly applied Heller.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#28 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 12,865 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 02 February 2018 - 08:36 AM

I don't think the state argued very well.  It's not surprising because the Illinois patronage system puts incompetent boneheads in the Attorney General's office.

 

When Chief Justice Karmeier illustrates why the law should be examined with intermediate scrutiny he says:

 

As to the second variable on the sliding scale, the severity of the law’s burden on the right, the law at issue affects the gun rights of the entire law-abiding population of Illinois like the laws in Moore, Ezell, Aguilar, and Mosley. As in those cases, the law functions as a categorical prohibition without providing an exception for law-abiding individuals. It is therefore a severe burden on the recognized second amendment right of self-defense. 

 

 

I don't know what kind of weak argument the state made, but there is an exception for law-abiding individuals, it is called a Concealed Carry License.  The CCL exempts citizens from the 1000-foot UUW/AUUW law.

 

 

 

 

 

.


Edited by C0untZer0, 02 February 2018 - 08:37 AM.

 

Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.
- N. A. Halkides -
 
“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters” 
- Daniel Webster -
 
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. 
- H. L. Mencken -
 
“Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."

 


#29 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,591 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 02 February 2018 - 08:45 AM

I don't think the state argued very well.  It's not surprising because the Illinois patronage system puts incompetent boneheads in the Attorney General's office.
 
When Chief Justice Karmeier illustrates why the law should be examined with intermediate scrutiny he says:
 
As to the second variable on the sliding scale, the severity of the law’s burden on the right, the law at issue affects the gun rights of the entire law-abiding population of Illinois like the laws in Moore, Ezell, Aguilar, and Mosley. As in those cases, the law functions as a categorical prohibition without providing an exception for law-abiding individuals. It is therefore a severe burden on the recognized second amendment right of self-defense. 
 

 
I don't know what kind of weak argument the state made, but there is an exception for law-abiding individuals, it is called a Concealed Carry License.  The CCL exempts citizens from the 1000-foot UUW/AUUW law.
 
 
 
 
 
.


This is what I'm struggling with understanding. The CCL wasn't even mentioned. Ergo, it would appear that *anyone* not legally prohibited from owning a gun should be able to carry within 1000' feet of a public park. No permit required.

#30 TomKoz

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,384 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 10

Posted 02 February 2018 - 10:09 AM

Constitutional Carry here we come !! ???
Stay Alert ... Stay Alive !!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users