344 replies to this topic

[Molly B.]

Posted - 11 Dec. 2012 10:40 a.m.

http://www.ca7.uscou...&submit=showdkt

Illinois ban on Right to Carry ruled unconstitutional!

We have a ruling from the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals - The Supreme Court’s interpretation of
the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse
the decisions in the two cases before us and remand
them to their respective district courts for the entry
of declarations of unconstitutionality and
permanent injunctions.

Nevertheless we order our mandate
stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois
legislature to craft a new gun law that will
impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public
safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in
this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.
REVERSED AND REMANDED, WITH DIRECTIONS;
BUT MANDATE STAYED FOR 180 DAYS.

We win, the ban on carrying is unconstitutional!

[Molly B.]

In sum, the empirical literature on the effects
of allowing the carriage of guns in public fails to establish
a pragmatic defense of the Illinois law.

Nevertheless we order our mandate
stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois
legislature to craft a new gun law that will
impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public
safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in
this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.

[GarandFan]

Thanks for posting  I have not yet read it either.  The concluding sentence may be somewhat telling of the trajectory of the opinion ...

In the absence of clearer indication that the Second Amendment codified a generally recognized right to carry arms in public for self-defense, I would leave this judgment in the hands of the State of Illinois.

[Molly B.]

If the mere possibility that allowing guns to be carried
in public would increase the crime or death rates
sufficed to justify a ban, Heller would have been
decided the other way, for that possibility was as great
in the District of Columbia as it is in Illinois.

my bold

[Smittyp83]

Outstanding!!!!

Now the fight will be over the term, "Reasonable"

[pyre400]

Strict scrutiny?

[Bimmer]

Wow, speechless!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[colt-45]

did we win

[GarandFan]

The Supreme Court rejected the argument [collective right]. The
appellees ask us to repudiate the Court’s historical analysis.
That we can’t do. Nor can we ignore the implication
of the analysis that the constitutional right of armed selfdefense
is broader than the right to have a gun
in one’s home. The first sentence of the McDonald
opinion states that “two years ago, in District of
Columbia v. Heller, we held that the Second Amendment
protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose
of self-defense,” McDonald v. City of Chicago, supra, 130 S.
Ct. at 3026, and later in the opinion we read
that “Heller explored the right’s origins, noting that the
1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right
to keep arms for self-defense, 554 U.S. at 593, and that
by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right
to keep and bear arms was ‘one of the fundamental rights
of Englishmen,’ id. at 594.” 130 S. Ct. at 3037. And immediately
the Court adds that “Blackstone’s assessment
was shared by the American colonists.” Id.
Both Heller and McDonald do say that “the need
for defense of self, family, and property is most acute”
in the home, id. at 3036 (emphasis added); 554 U.S. at
628, but that doesn’t mean it is not acute outside the home.
Heller repeatedly invokes a broader Second
Amendment right than the right to have a gun in
one’s home, as when it says that the amendment
“guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and
Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788 5
carry weapons in case of confrontation.” 554 U.S. at 592.
Confrontations are not limited to the home.
The Second Amendment states in its entirety that “a
well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (emphasis added).
The right to “bear” as distinct from the right to “keep”
arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of “bearing”
arms within one’s home would at all times have been
an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies
a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.

[Skorpius]

*&#%^! WOW! This is huge for Illinoisans outside of Chicago. I expect we'll be screwed again here in the City based on what they enacted after the ban was dropped, though. Time to move outside Cook, perhaps, and be free.

[Jeffrey]

MONUMENTAL not only for Illinois but for America!  As it should have already been.

[GarandFan]

Blackstone described the right of armed self-preservation
as a fundamental natural right of Englishmen, on
a par with seeking redress in the courts or petitioning
the government. 1 Blackstone, supra, at 136,
139–40. The Court in Heller inferred from this that
eighteenth-century English law recognized a right
to possess guns for resistance, self-preservation, self-defense,
and protection against both public and
private violence. 554 U.S. at 594. The Court said that
American law was the same. Id. at 594–95. And in
contrast to the situation in England, in less peaceable
America a distinction between keeping arms for self-defense
in the home and carrying them outside the home
would, as we said, have been irrational. All this is debatable
of course, but we are bound by the Supreme
Court’s historical analysis because it was central
to the Court’s holding in Heller.

[Getzapped]

I almost got choked up reading that!!!   Well Done 7th!!!

[Pecker]

Congrats guys!  Well done.

[TyGuy]

IGOLD 2013, who's bringing the champagne?

[GarandFan]

Hope no one minds me posting what I consider are seminal passages from this ruling ...



Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians.
But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be
attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in
his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower.
A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a
protective order against a violent ex-husband is more
vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from
her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense
claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than
the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with
doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under
her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim,
while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter.
That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine
the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second
Amendment from the right of self-defense described
in Heller and McDonald.

[Patriots & Tyrants]

HELL YES RIGHT TO CARRY HERE WE COME!

This ruling is better than I could have ever hoped for.

Hopefully GOOD legislation like HB148 can be passed ASAP. I bet the Chicago-Anti Gun Pol's are wetting themselves right now. I will be first in line for a CC Permit once the requirments are hammered out.Ordering a P226 holster today; going out to buy a P239 tomorrow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Should we be calling our reps and demanding they pass HB148 yet?

Edited by Patriots & Tyrants, 11 December 2012 - 11:03 AM.

[TyGuy]

We just need to hold on for a low training, low fee, shall issue permit, and then fight to loosen the requirements later.  All in all, a HUGE step forward today.

[oneshot]

My country tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing.
Land where my fathers died!
Land of the Pilgrim's pride!
From every mountain side,
Let freedom ring!

My native country, thee,
Land of the noble free,
Thy name I love.
I love thy rocks and rills,
Thy woods and templed hills;
My heart with rapture fills
Like that above.

Let music swell the breeze,
And ring from all the trees
Sweet freedom's song.
Let mortal tongues awake;
Let all that breathe partake;
Let rocks their silence break,
The sound prolong.

Our father's God to, Thee,
Author of liberty,
To Thee we sing.
Long may our land be bright
With freedom's holy light;
Protect us by Thy might,
Great God, our King!

[pyre400]

Patriots & Tyrants, on 11 December 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

Should we be calling our reps and demanding they pass HB148 yet?

Something tells me that 148 was a lost "opportunity" for the opposition.  We'll see though.

[GarandFan]

In sum, the empirical literature on the effects
of allowing the carriage of guns in public fails to establish
a pragmatic defense of the Illinois law.
...

Anyway the Supreme Court made clear
in Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear
arms depend on casualty counts.

[oneshot]

The way it's worded, I'm hoping we can fight off restrictions on "special locations".

[TyGuy]

oneshot, on 11 December 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

The way it's worded, I'm hoping we can fight off restrictions on "special locations".

I wish we could do away with such locations, unless under direct police guard with controlled monitored (metal detectors, etc...) entrances, such as court houses, but I think we'll have to give ground on this one.  That doesn't mean we won't make that ground back up in a year or two when the streets stop running red with blood.  (as they already are running red with blood because of the unarmed public)

[Federal Farmer]

oneshot, on 11 December 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

The way it's worded, I'm hoping we can fight off restrictions on "special locations".

Yes, by calling out Chicago specifically, it puts paid to may issue, I think.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

[bob]

Posted 06 August 2012 - 09:09 AM



Some one put in a placeholder back in August????

[phattony]

'Merica!

[Geneseo1911]

I don't friggin' believe it.  I had given up hope, but it looks like Bud was RIGHT!
Glad I bought my PF9 this summer (and took care of its obligatory 3 trips back to the manuf.), because I have a feeling carry guns are going to be a hot commodity in IL soon!

[sleepercaprice1]

Maybe Bud was right after all.

[Flubnut]

As long as the final law doesn't end up looking like New York's (which was cited by both majority and dissenting opinions), I will be happy.  If I have to pay $100-200 for an 8-hour class and a background check, I will be happy.  If I have to somehow prove to someone (local sheriff) that I "need" to carry, because of an actual credible threat, I'll be very disappointed.  I'm guessing the only time there will be a credible and verifiable threat to my life is when it's standing in front of me.  It's just as likely to be a wild animal as it is a person!

[Lou]

From The Tribune:
www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-us-appeals-court-strikes-down-states-concealedcarry-ban-20121211,0,7034171.story

Quote

chicagotribune.com

U.S. appeals court strikes down state's concealed-carry ban

By Ray Long
Tribune reporter
11:52 AM CST, December 11, 2012

Advertisement

The state of Illinois would have to allow ordinary citizens to carry weapons under a federal appeals court ruling issued today, but the judges also gave lawmakers 180 days to put their own version of the law in place.

In a 2-1 decision that is a major victory for the National Rifle Association, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said the state's ban on carrying a weapon in public is unconstitutional.

"We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home. The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside," the judges ruled.

"The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense. Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden.

"The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment compelled the appeals court to rule the ban unconstitutional, the judges said. But the court gave 180 days to "allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public."

Illinois is the only state in the nation not to have some form of conceal carry after Wisconsin recently approved law.

"The (Illinois) legislature, in the new session, will be forced to take up a statewide carry law," said NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde.

The lobbyist said prior attempts to reach a middle ground with opponents will no longer be necessary because "those compromises are going out the window."

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office is reading the just-issued opinion and is unable at this point to comment about the prospects of filing an appeal, a spokeswoman said.

rlong@tribune.com
Twitter @RayLong
Copyright © 2012 Chicago Tribune Company, LLC