Jump to content

IL-Supreme Court rules on Aguilar

Patriots & Tyrants

By Patriots & Tyrants
in Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion

Recommended Posts

Patriots & Tyrants Member

Patriots & Tyrants

Posted
  • Author
Posted

There is some mixed language in the ruling no doubt

 

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 (Heller, 554 U.S. at 599), then it would make little sense to restrict that right to the home, as “[c]onfrontations are not limited to the home.” Moore, 702 F.3d at 935-36. 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.” (Emphasis added.) Heller, 554 U.S. at 593-94[/color]]

Good

 

 

 

 

 

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 626.

From there, the Court went on to emphasize that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id. at 626-27. The Court then immediately added, by way of footnote, that “[w]e identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.” Id. at 627 n.26.

 

 

 

The not so good

 

Both sides will find something to use in this ruling; its more helpful than not as going forward the antis could not change the system to may issue as easily even with super majorities

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Uncle Harley Member

Uncle Harley

Posted
Posted

From the original posters link..........anyone care to weigh in on this? Todd? Molly? John Boch says:

September 12, 2013 at 11:27

 

Carry for adults, who aren’t otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms, is now no longer illegal in Illinois!

Until, that is, the ISP starts issuing licenses – which yesterday I would have said would be next March at the earliest.

That timetable may be subject to change rather quickly now.

I’m strapping on at lunchtime.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cshipley92 Member

cshipley92

Posted
Posted

From the original posters link..........anyone care to weigh in on this? Todd? Molly? John Boch says:

September 12, 2013 at 11:27

 

Carry for adults, who aren’t otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms, is now no longer illegal in Illinois!

Until, that is, the ISP starts issuing licenses – which yesterday I would have said would be next March at the earliest.

That timetable may be subject to change rather quickly now.

I’m strapping on at lunchtime.

John

 

But wouldn't open carry still be legal even after they issue permits, as the FCCA only deals with "mostly or fully concealed" firearms?

 

I'm headed to Springfield today...how brave am I feeling. :devil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
s0beit Member

s0beit

Posted
Posted

So, seeing as there's now a constitutional right to carry outside of the home:

 

1. Does this mean we can carry until CCL is in place? I think it's a valid question.

2. More importantly, how is a 'concealed carry license' a legitimate legal concept? (or FOID for that matter, I suppose. Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cshipley92 Member

cshipley92

Posted
Posted

So, seeing as there's now a constitutional right to carry outside of the home:

 

1. Does this mean we can carry until CCL is in place? I think it's a valid question.

2. More importantly, how is a 'concealed carry license' a legitimate legal concept? (or FOID for that matter, I suppose. Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself...)

 

there is a history of regulating concealed carry so that probably would withstand constitutional scrutiny. However open carry is a different animal and a total ban is now unconstitutional here.

 

As for the FOID, once again its a regulation, not a total ban, so it falls outside the scope of Heller, McDonald, and Moore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bob Member

bob

Posted
Posted

This appears to deal very nicely with the provisions of the UUW act that prohibit carry in public in all cases.

 

720 ILCS 5/21-6 is still in play. But, my guess is other than some very sensitive places like jails, it is going to be very hard get a conviction to stick for carrying a gun in a TIF zone, or a park.

 

I suspect the legislature is going to have to have some kind of emergency session to deal with this issue. We might well have gone over to VT style carry! It is not something I would have bet a whole lot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinnyb82 Member

skinnyb82

Posted
Posted

I'd call my SA but he doesn't ever return calls, emails, faxes, or letters. He wouldn't even go on the record about Gibbons decision to not prosecute AUUW. He had thr Chief of Police and Sheriff make a joint statement saying that they had spoke to him and decided to continue to enforce the AUUW as a result of their meeting with the SA and his statement to them that he would continue to prosecute. I need to go to my Reps office.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cls74 Member

cls74

Posted
Posted

Spoke with my SA on the phone. He said "on the face of it it looks like anyone with a FOID can carry now." He did say he wanted to read it again and speak with some ither SA's and that after doing so he would call me back.

 

That is interesting, I bet there are a lot of anti's scrambling like little roaches when the lights come on. Can you imagine going from complaining about how slow the ISP is going to hoping they take their time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wilessiuc Member

wilessiuc

Posted
Posted
My reading is that the case invalidates the only provision keeping us law-abiding from carrying concealed. As long as you don't fall under any of the other exclusions under the UUW statute (have a FOID, no felony, not violating cannabis control act, no OP, not engaged in crime of violence, and not under 21) it doesn't appear they have anything to charge us with. The interesting question is how this affects the new concealed carry law we are waiting on. Because if we don't get the permit, it still appears they can't charge us?? Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bob Member

bob

Posted
Posted

they could still charge you for having a weapon on land funded in whole or in part with public funds. I suspect it would be hard to make a conviction of that provision stick, especially if they charged you for having the weapon in a state forest or a TIF zone.

 

But, no need for any of us to run out and become test cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Camar10 Member

Camar10

Posted
Posted
i just don't understand why they (The courts)cannot just come right out and say it "Yes, Illinois has violated its people for years and now we are here to help them get the rights back, and yes, carrying a firearm is now legal as long as you abide by the above simple rules". It is always just strung out there in front of us like a carrot on a stick!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sailor Member

sailor

Posted
Posted

The footnote on page 8 reads:

 

Following the decision in Moore, the General Assembly enacted the

Firearm Concealed Carry Act, which inter alia amended the AUUW statute

to allow for a limited right to carry certain firearms in public. See Pub. Act

98-0063 (eff. July 9, 2013), Neither the Firearm Concealed Carry Act nor

the amended AUUW statute is at issue in this case.

 

My take is that this ruling is confirming Moore, striking a conviction under the old statute, and establishing precedent for all Illinois jurisdictions. This basically means that any convictions under the pre-FCCA UUW statute are going to be vacated by any court that hears an appeal of said conviction. Unfortunately I don't see this having an effect on the new regime in place in Illinois, with the FCCA. However, it may indicate a court at least amendable to hearing an argument that open carry, versus concealed carry, is a right not subject to licensing. It may also indicate a court that would be sympathetic to arguments about excessive fees or other impediments for exercising a right. I'd be wary interpreting this to permit immediate carrying without a permit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...