Police power in the Illinois constitution

[robbin]

I have been getting fuzzy eyed reading our Illinois constitution,, we have the right to bear arms but police power is mentioned. So that means they only have to use our ban will protect you with laws. And the police will protect your families. Don't get me wrong my best friend is an officer and he is for ccw. Maybe we need to show in stats that law biding citizens can stop crimes faster than the response time of the police forces encountering budget cut backs. How much time did it take to respond to a 911 call to the officer going 10-8 or leaving the scene I have also had to call 911 and It took the police more than five min to arrive at my house, by then my whole family could have be . Killed and the police station is only five blocks away

[Buzzard]

Welcome to the forum, Robbin!

 

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS

Subject only to the police power, the right of the

individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be

infringed.

(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

 

What "Subject only to the police power" in the Illinois Constitution refers to is the State Legislature, and not any law enforcement agency. It was added, as I'm told, during the 1970 Illinois Constitutional Convention. Someone else will hopefully jump in and add more details.

[ilphil]

I was in High School at the time, but as I recall this was a direct result of the civil rights riots of the 1960s, as was the FOID Act.

 

Mayor Daley (the first) wanted to make sure a legal mechanism existed to allow him to disarm the black community in the event of future disturbances.

 

And since the Democratic machine controlled the ConCon, Daley got what he wanted.

[chicago guy]

"Police Power" is, I believe, a legal "term of art" -- the general meaning is that states, not the federal government, may enact laws for the general safety, health, morals and welfare of the people. States do not have to have a specific "grant of power" the way the Feds do. The Federal government, in theory, has only the limited powers specifically mentioned in the constitution. Bottom line, it negates the right to bear arms if the Illinois legislature thinks restrictive laws are necessary for health, safety, or whatever. At least, that's my understanding.

I'm not a lawyer, so don't bet the farm on it!

[Bud]

I was in High School at the time, but as I recall this was a direct result of the civil rights riots of the 1960s, as was the FOID Act.

 

Mayor Daley (the first) wanted to make sure a legal mechanism existed to allow him to disarm the black community in the event of future disturbances.

 

And since the Democratic machine controlled the ConCon, Daley got what he wanted.

 

 

I was a very young policeman at the time and Illinois Phil has it exactly right. Couple of additions though. Mayor Daley's son, Richard the secoind, was the ConCon delegate who wrote it into the new Constitution.

 

Everyone in Cook County (where I was a suburban policeman) was aware that it was totally racially motivated. Richard the First was terrified of "them people" (his words, not mine) getting guns.

 

Another sad chapter in a very long history of sad chapters of "Illinois Political History".

[Buzzard]

I was in High School at the time, but as I recall this was a direct result of the civil rights riots of the 1960s, as was the FOID Act.

 

Mayor Daley (the first) wanted to make sure a legal mechanism existed to allow him to disarm the black community in the event of future disturbances.

 

And since the Democratic machine controlled the ConCon, Daley got what he wanted.

 

And yet the African American community continues to be a HUGE voting block for the Democrats. (Who are CERTAINLY not racist!)

 

Go figure.

[junglebob]

I was in High School at the time, but as I recall this was a direct result of the civil rights riots of the 1960s, as was the FOID Act.

 

Mayor Daley (the first) wanted to make sure a legal mechanism existed to allow him to disarm the black community in the event of future disturbances.

 

And since the Democratic machine controlled the ConCon, Daley got what he wanted.

 

And yet the African American community continues to be a HUGE voting block for the Democrats. (Who are CERTAINLY not racist!)

 

Go figure.

Isn't it interesting that republicans in the house supported the 1964 civil rights act 138 to 34 who opposed and democrats 152 favored and 96 opposed so 4 to 1 in favor for republicans and 1 1/2 to 1 for democrats. Don't forget the work that Senator Everett Dirkson did to get the civil rights bill through. Isn't it interesting how the media can portray republicans as racist red necks, or rich fat cats with no regard for civil rights when blacks would still be in the back of the bus if the large minority of democrats in the U.S. House of representatives had their way.

[Gary]

I was in High School at the time, but as I recall this was a direct result of the civil rights riots of the 1960s, as was the FOID Act.

 

Mayor Daley (the first) wanted to make sure a legal mechanism existed to allow him to disarm the black community in the event of future disturbances.

 

And since the Democratic machine controlled the ConCon, Daley got what he wanted.

 

And yet the African American community continues to be a HUGE voting block for the Democrats. (Who are CERTAINLY not racist!)

 

Go figure.

This makes sense but that was then and now is now and the reasoning of what is happening now is, at best, confusing to me. Since there is a higher cconcentration of black folks in Chicago than in the rest of the state and virtually no one has a FOID card in Chicago which makes the stated reasoning for the FOID to not be applicable to that population and yet, there seems to be little if any enforcement of the law on anyone other that those that live outside of Chicago. Why do they cling to a law that is this ineffective in accomplishing its stated reasons?

[Gary]

I was in High School at the time, but as I recall this was a direct result of the civil rights riots of the 1960s, as was the FOID Act.

 

Mayor Daley (the first) wanted to make sure a legal mechanism existed to allow him to disarm the black community in the event of future disturbances.

 

And since the Democratic machine controlled the ConCon, Daley got what he wanted.

 

And yet the African American community continues to be a HUGE voting block for the Democrats. (Who are CERTAINLY not racist!)

 

Go figure.

Isn't it interesting that republicans in the house supported the 1964 civil rights act 138 to 34 who opposed and democrats 152 favored and 96 opposed so 4 to 1 in favor for republicans and 1 1/2 to 1 for democrats. Don't forget the work that Senator Everett Dirkson did to get the civil rights bill through. Isn't it interesting how the media can portray republicans as racist red necks, or rich fat cats with no regard for civil rights when blacks would still be in the back of the bus if the large minority of democrats in the U.S. House of representatives had their way.

Dems will tell you, "Yeah, but those were Reagan Dems that went for Nixon during the Southern Strategy." It is the only excuse they have. Not only that but Al Gore said that it was during the 1964 Civil Rights debate that he watched the procedings from the gallery and decided then that he wanted to be a Democrat. I guess then, that he was there to watch his dad vote AGAINST the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

[robbin]

You know it's like give and taketh away in the same sentence . That is so unconstitutional, I have read other states and they even mention you can be called up to protect your town and state . And You have the right to conceal carry. I am so , I wonder if Illinois will ever get open carry or ccw . I would some to be able to protect my family. And my wife protect her self when not at home. Barfing on her self or using keys for self defense. Give me a brake I try to give her every self defense gimmick I can find until and the six seconds to safety like when you go to the range. My problem I am disabled and can not run nor walk very far and I feel I am a target and my family is to when in the public I am a good size man in the past no one would mess with me but now it changed. It is a bad feeling . Illinois needs to wake up 49 other are free second amendment . You know the constitution was read out loud yesterday our founding fathers smiled for an hour......

[ishmo]

You know it's like give and taketh away in the same sentence . That is so unconstitutional, I have read other states and they even mention you can be called up to protect your town and state . And You have the right to conceal carry. I am so , I wonder if Illinois will ever get open carry or ccw . I would some to be able to protect my family. And my wife protect her self when not at home. Barfing on her self or using keys for self defense. Give me a brake I try to give her every self defense gimmick I can find until and the six seconds to safety like when you go to the range. My problem I am disabled and can not run nor walk very far and I feel I am a target and my family is to when in the public I am a good size man in the past no one would mess with me but now it changed. It is a bad feeling . Illinois needs to wake up 49 other are free second amendment . You know the constitution was read out loud yesterday our founding fathers smiled for an hour......

The 'Subject only to the police power" clause wasn't originally intended to be interpreted as it is today. It was eventually perverted into it's current interpretation by self serving politicos on both sides to suit their own purposes, namely disarm the population in Chicago, especially the black community. You can download a copy of the 1970 Record of Proceedings, Sixth Illinois Constitutional Convention and give it a read. The download link is about 3/4 of the way down the page. Some of the crap that went on back then is amazing.

 

Welcome to Illinois Carry.

 

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION

 

"Subject only to the police power, the right of the Individual

citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Section

22, Article I of the Illinois Bill of Rights.*

 

*The Sixth Illinois Constitutional Conventions Committee on Bill

of Rights in their official commentary interpreted this provision

in 1970 as a guarantee that "a citizen has the right to possess

and make reasonable use of arms that law-abiding citizens

commonly employ for purposes of recreation of protection of

person and property." Any use of the police power, the Committee

said, that "attempted to ban all possession or use of such arms,

or laws that subjected possession or use of such arms to

regulations or taxes so onerous that ail possession or use was

effectively banned, would be invalid."

Source

[CCR74]

Perhaps a more relevant question now would be whether that language can be enforced in a post-Chicago Gun Case world. We'll have to wait to see, but I'm sure someone will stand-up and be a test case; all it will take is someone who is arrested for "transporting" and is willing to make it a federal case.

[ishmo]

Perhaps a more relevant question now would be whether that language can be enforced in a post-Chicago Gun Case world. We'll have to wait to see, but I'm sure someone will stand-up and be a test case; all it will take is someone who is arrested for "transporting" and is willing to make it a federal case.

I think it might be more effective if it could be introduced in one of the current suits going on here in Illinois. Whether it would sway any judges in Illinois I don't know but I expect if it's useful in any way the ISRA, NRA or SAF will work it in somehow.

[Federal Farmer]

I believe we'll always have the preamble "Subject to the Police Power" in our state right to arms. However, the scope of what the state can apply its police power to will be limited. It is limited somewhat already post-McDonald.