Molly B. Posted February 1, 2018 at 08:43 PM Share Posted February 1, 2018 at 08:43 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. IIThe circuit court heard arguments by counsel for defendant and the State regardingdefendant’s petition for relief. At the hearing, defendant argued that an individualwho 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/volokh/2018/02/01/ban-on-carrying-guns-within-1000-feet-of?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingWalleye Posted February 1, 2018 at 08:59 PM Share Posted February 1, 2018 at 08:59 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted February 1, 2018 at 09:24 PM Share Posted February 1, 2018 at 09:24 PM what does this mean for concealed carry IN a public park? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hipshot Percussion Posted February 1, 2018 at 09:36 PM Share Posted February 1, 2018 at 09:36 PM I have no idea just what this means for us, but... YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted February 1, 2018 at 09:41 PM Share Posted February 1, 2018 at 09:41 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmyers Posted February 1, 2018 at 09:41 PM Share Posted February 1, 2018 at 09:41 PM Another good ruling for us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted February 1, 2018 at 09:45 PM Author Share Posted February 1, 2018 at 09:45 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SycamoreRuger Posted February 1, 2018 at 09:46 PM Share Posted February 1, 2018 at 09:46 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.com/news/local/illinois-high-court-says-gun-ban-near-parks-unconstitutional Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted February 1, 2018 at 09:47 PM Author Share Posted February 1, 2018 at 09:47 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbeard Posted February 1, 2018 at 10:28 PM Share Posted February 1, 2018 at 10:28 PM Did they add this 1000 foot zone after CCW passed? How have I never heard about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted February 1, 2018 at 10:41 PM Share Posted February 1, 2018 at 10:41 PM Is there a link somewhere to the actual written opinion. I am interested in reading it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawman Posted February 1, 2018 at 10:47 PM Share Posted February 1, 2018 at 10:47 PM It is in the unlawful use of weapons statute. The opinion is on the Illinois Supreme Court website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted February 1, 2018 at 10:48 PM Author Share Posted February 1, 2018 at 10:48 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted February 1, 2018 at 10:52 PM Share Posted February 1, 2018 at 10:52 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted February 2, 2018 at 12:01 AM Share Posted February 2, 2018 at 12:01 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted February 2, 2018 at 12:24 AM Share Posted February 2, 2018 at 12:24 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted February 2, 2018 at 12:33 AM Share Posted February 2, 2018 at 12:33 AM 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 ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted February 2, 2018 at 12:56 AM Share Posted February 2, 2018 at 12:56 AM 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted February 2, 2018 at 02:15 AM Share Posted February 2, 2018 at 02:15 AM 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted February 2, 2018 at 02:30 AM Share Posted February 2, 2018 at 02:30 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted February 2, 2018 at 02:52 AM Share Posted February 2, 2018 at 02:52 AM 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.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2018/121417.pdf So the case wasn't decided on Rational Basis, but rather Intermediate Scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glock23 Posted February 2, 2018 at 03:01 AM Share Posted February 2, 2018 at 03:01 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted February 2, 2018 at 03:14 AM Share Posted February 2, 2018 at 03:14 AM 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted February 2, 2018 at 03:26 AM Share Posted February 2, 2018 at 03:26 AM 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. http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2018/121417.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTHunter Posted February 2, 2018 at 04:18 AM Share Posted February 2, 2018 at 04:18 AM Here are some more links to news stories about this. http://reason.com/volokh/2018/02/01/ban-on-carrying-guns-within-1000-feet-of http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-supreme-court-gun-ruling-20180201-story,amp.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/illinois-high-court-says-gun-ban-near-parks-unconstitutional/2018/02/01/014ad42e-0789-11e8-aa61-f3391373867e_story.html?utm_term=.b3822c2c1d84 http://www.sj-r.com/news/20180201/illinois-supreme-court-says-gun-ban-near-parks-unconstitutional http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/01/gun-right-advocates-score-victory-with-latest-illinois-supreme-court-ruling/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted February 2, 2018 at 12:01 PM Share Posted February 2, 2018 at 12:01 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 2, 2018 at 02:29 PM Share Posted February 2, 2018 at 02:29 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted February 2, 2018 at 02:36 PM Share Posted February 2, 2018 at 02:36 PM 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. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted February 2, 2018 at 02:45 PM Share Posted February 2, 2018 at 02:45 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomKoz Posted February 2, 2018 at 04:09 PM Share Posted February 2, 2018 at 04:09 PM Constitutional Carry here we come !! ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.