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

#31 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,246 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 02 February 2018 - 10:23 AM

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 city's liquor license posting enforcement seems to be pretty lax. I've been to several locations in the city that definitely have liquor licenses and no signage is apparent. 



#32 RonOglesby - Now in Texas

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,296 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 12

Posted 02 February 2018 - 11:52 AM

This is one of those cases I would LOVE to hear the oral arguments for. Listening to attorneys for the state of Illinois in gun control cases is always amusing.


Contrary to popular opinion, no one owes you anything.

#33 RonOglesby - Now in Texas

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,296 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 12

Posted 02 February 2018 - 12:34 PM

I always scratched my head at these laws that say "1000 ft from X" and this court was correct in that assessment... How could a person KNOW when they are withing 1,000 ft of something. I mean that something may be blocks over from where you are.

 

I also wondered if anyone has ever tried to map it out. Like 1000 ft of a school, 1000 foot close to a park... and lay it all out. So as a thought experiment I took a screen shot of the garfield park area (since I know that area) and then ID's all the Chicago Park District parks, and any school parks.  Then I drew around them out to 1000 ft in every direction.  Now I may be missing some, and may be missing some schools which also fall into this crazy law, but check out what 15 minutes got me:

 

I cant get the photo to upload/attach.... ARRGGGGHGHGHGH!


Edited by RonOglesby - Now in Texas, 02 February 2018 - 12:37 PM.

Contrary to popular opinion, no one owes you anything.

#34 RonOglesby - Now in Texas

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,296 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 12

Posted 02 February 2018 - 12:44 PM

Had to convert from a JPG to a PNG

Attached Thumbnails

  • 1000FtPark.png

Contrary to popular opinion, no one owes you anything.

#35 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,397 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 02 February 2018 - 12:56 PM

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.


The original conviction (April 2013) pre-dated the FCCA. The statutes argued in these proceedings included only the UUW/AUUW codes effective at that time. The CCL exemption did not yet exist.

Edited by kwc, 02 February 2018 - 12:58 PM.

"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)

#36 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,080 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 02 February 2018 - 01:12 PM

Ahhhh...


 

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."

 


#37 lawman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 602 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 14

Posted 02 February 2018 - 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.

 

 

Close but not quite.  Carrying in public without a CCL is prohibited.  Carrying within 1000 feet of a park is prohibited.  They are two distinct offenses.  He was convicted of the 1000 foot/park, and was not tried on the offense of carrying in public.  The offense he was convicted of was deemed unconstitutional, but it seems to me that he is guilty of carrying in public, a separate offense.



#38 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 4,174 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 02 February 2018 - 02:55 PM

Had to convert from a JPG to a PNG

Your red blood cell count looks kind of low.
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#39 lawman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 602 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 14

Posted 02 February 2018 - 02:59 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

 

 

Actually, it was stuck down on the basis of "elevated intermediate scrutiny".  The court has adopted a sliding scale of intermediate scrutiny and must decide where on the scale the issue at bar fits.  This is close to strict scrutiny in this case.  See the opinion discussion at paragraphs 34 through 40, and their statements at paragraphs 46 and 50 as to what standard they are using.



#40 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 15,392 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 02 February 2018 - 03:21 PM

. . . but it seems to me that he is guilty of carrying in public, a separate offense.

 

 

I wonder if that was one of the charges they dropped in the plea deal and then petitioned the court to reinstate but the court said statute of limitations had run out.


"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

#41 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,712 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 02 February 2018 - 03:28 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.
 


 
Close but not quite.  Carrying in public without a CCL is prohibited.  Carrying within 1000 feet of a park is prohibited.  They are two distinct offenses.  He was convicted of the 1000 foot/park, and was not tried on the offense of carrying in public.  The offense he was convicted of was deemed unconstitutional, but it seems to me that he is guilty of carrying in public, a separate offense.


It makes sense now that KWC pointed the offense predated the FCCA. I wasn't grasping why or how that could not have been a consideration. I thought it was a 2015 offense.

#42 lawman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 602 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 14

Posted 02 February 2018 - 03:59 PM

 

. . . but it seems to me that he is guilty of carrying in public, a separate offense.

 

 

I wonder if that was one of the charges they dropped in the plea deal and then petitioned the court to reinstate but the court said statute of limitations had run out.

 

 

That would be my guess.  He won the convict lottery here, getting his conviction thrown out and denying the State the opportunity to reinstate those charges.  It seems to me that if you plead guilty and then ask the court to set aside the conviction you are violating your terms of the agreement and the State should have the opportunity to try you on the other charges.  But evidently that is not the way it works.



#43 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,080 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 02 February 2018 - 04:44 PM

Carrying in public without a CCL is prohibited.  Carrying within 1000 feet of a park is prohibited.  They are two distinct offenses.  He was convicted of the 1000 foot/park, and was not tried on the offense of carrying in public.  The offense he was convicted of was deemed unconstitutional, but it seems to me that he is guilty of carrying in public, a separate offense.

 

 

 
 
The law is poorly written.  Someone could commit the offense of "Unlawful Use of Weapons" and be looking at anything from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class X felony.
 
(720 ILCS 5/24-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24-1) 
    Sec. 24-1. Unlawful use of weapons part c outlines the different offenses that are committed by being in different locations
 
 
 
( c ) Violations in specific places. 
        (1) A person who violates subsection 24-1(a)(6) or 24-1(a)(7) in any school, regardless of the time of day or the time of year, in residential property owned, operated or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development, in a public park, in a courthouse, on the real property comprising any school, regardless of the time of day or the time of year, on residential property owned, operated or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development, on the real property comprising any public park, on the real property comprising any courthouse, in any conveyance owned, leased or contracted by a school to transport students to or from school or a school related activity, in any conveyance owned, leased, or contracted by a public transportation agency, or on any public way within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising any school, public park, courthouse, public transportation facility, or residential property owned, operated, or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development commits a Class 2 felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 3 years and not more than 7 years.

 

 


 

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."

 


#44 lawman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 602 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 14

Posted 02 February 2018 - 07:02 PM

 

Carrying in public without a CCL is prohibited.  Carrying within 1000 feet of a park is prohibited.  They are two distinct offenses.  He was convicted of the 1000 foot/park, and was not tried on the offense of carrying in public.  The offense he was convicted of was deemed unconstitutional, but it seems to me that he is guilty of carrying in public, a separate offense.

 

 

 
 
The law is poorly written.  Someone could commit the offense of "Unlawful Use of Weapons" and be looking at anything from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class X felony.
 
(720 ILCS 5/24-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24-1) 
    Sec. 24-1. Unlawful use of weapons part c outlines the different offenses that are committed by being in different locations
 
 
 
( c ) Violations in specific places. 
        (1) A person who violates subsection 24-1(a)(6) or 24-1(a)(7) in any school, regardless of the time of day or the time of year, in residential property owned, operated or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development, in a public park, in a courthouse, on the real property comprising any school, regardless of the time of day or the time of year, on residential property owned, operated or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development, on the real property comprising any public park, on the real property comprising any courthouse, in any conveyance owned, leased or contracted by a school to transport students to or from school or a school related activity, in any conveyance owned, leased, or contracted by a public transportation agency, or on any public way within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising any school, public park, courthouse, public transportation facility, or residential property owned, operated, or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development commits a Class 2 felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 3 years and not more than 7 years.

 

 

 

 

The law is poorly written?  You live in Illinois and this surprises you?



#45 IH8IL

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 725 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 13

Posted 03 February 2018 - 10:38 AM

Alot of laws are stupid. Thats one question I asked my instructor. Depending on my route to and from work, I sometimes drive thru a park. I asked him if I would be breaking the law, he told me I was fine as I was only driving thru.

#46 gangrel

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,068 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 11

Posted 03 February 2018 - 12:03 PM

Alot of laws are stupid. Thats one question I asked my instructor. Depending on my route to and from work, I sometimes drive thru a park. I asked him if I would be breaking the law, he told me I was fine as I was only driving thru.

If you have a CCL, you are fine because you are in the confines of your vehicle. Even out of your vehicle, if you are on a public right of way that goes through the park, your are fine. The 1,000 foot rule does not apply to those with a CCL.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


NRA Life Member

NRA Certified Range Safety Officer

NRA Certified Instructor - Basic Pistol, PPIH, PPOH, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety
ISP Approved Firearm Concealed Carry Instructor

Utah CCW Instructor


#47 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,080 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 03 February 2018 - 02:22 PM

“Strict Scrutiny” Amendments: Iron Plating for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

 

https://www.nraila.o...p-and-bear-arms

 

The U.S. Supreme Court, of course, has recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms. But anti-gun lower courts – many of which for years denied the existence of any such individual right at all – have largely ignored the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment rulings and have continued to interpret the provision into near irrelevance. Federal rulings on the Second Amendment are replete with references to “intermediate scrutiny,” a toothless standard that allows antigun officials broad leeway to infringe the rights of law-abiding Americans, including with bans on popular firearms and virtual bans on public carry.

 


 

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."

 


#48 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 4,174 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 03 February 2018 - 02:25 PM

Let's find someone who was previously busted for carrying a gun less than 1000 feet from a school.
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#49 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,378 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 03 February 2018 - 02:45 PM

Let's find someone who was previously busted for carrying a gun less than 1000 feet from a school.

I agree. We need someone with standing to challenge every location listed under 24-1 © (1.5).

 

The 1000 ft. zone is clearly unconstitutional. The Illinois Supreme Court paved the way for further challenges.



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


#50 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 4,174 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 03 February 2018 - 02:47 PM

And Cook County Forest Preserves!
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#51 BrowningHP

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,604 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 13

Posted 03 February 2018 - 08:36 PM

Please don’t forget about public transit

#52 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,731 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 04 February 2018 - 11:12 AM

. . . but it seems to me that he is guilty of carrying in public, a separate offense.

 
I wonder if that was one of the charges they dropped in the plea deal and then petitioned the court to reinstate but the court said statute of limitations had run out.
The pre-FCCA UUW ban on public carry has been ruled as unconstitutional which is probably why there was no such charge for public carry.
The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#53 jawman

  • Members
  • 39 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 13

Posted 04 February 2018 - 11:46 AM

Ok, so TL;DR version? Has anything changed to the IL concealed carry law? Or is it still the same?

#54 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,080 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 04 February 2018 - 12:30 PM

The ruling did not address nor did it change anything about the Firearms Concealed Carry Act, (Which should have been called the Family and Personal Protection Act )


 

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."

 


#55 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,731 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 04 February 2018 - 07:20 PM

The ruling did not address nor did it change anything about the Firearms Concealed Carry Act, (Which should have been called the Family and Personal Protection Act )

Hunters fishers and trappers will benefit from not unintentionally running afoul of the law by being within 1000 feet of a park while hunting fishing or trapping.
The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#56 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,731 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 04 February 2018 - 07:35 PM

Assuming open carry were to become legal than all legal open carriers would be legally able to walk down sidewalk within 1000 feet of a park with facing prosecution.
The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#57 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,246 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 05 February 2018 - 12:17 PM

This is a good ruling. Unfortunately, my guess is Mr. Chariez was not a good guy looking to do no harm to anyone. He was likely affiliated with a gang and/or intent on engaging in some kind of crime.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users