Jump to content

Solomon v Cook Co Forest Preserves - ban on concealed carry


Molly B.
 Share

Recommended Posts

Court Ruling on the Solomon Vs. Cook County Forest Preserves case banning carrying in the forest preserves...

 

Court finds the firearms regulations at issue to be unconstitutionally overbroad. Nevertheless, the Court temporarily stays enforcement of its ruling for six months i.e., until March 15, 2022 to provide the General Assembly an opportunity to act definitively on this matter if it chooses to do so. Emailed notice(cdh,)

 

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7430047/solomon-v-madigan/

gov.uscourts.ilnd.343440.123.0.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting statements by the court:

 

Quote

Defendants rely heavily on crime statistics
from Cook County and the City of Chicago, but amidst all the violent crimes that the record lists
and that Defendants argue show a threat to public safety, no one identifies any violent crimes
committed by CCL holders. Turning to the FPDCC in particular, of all the crimes committed in
the Forest Preserve between 2014 and 2019, only 4 were committed by CCL holders, [94 at ¶ 63],
and those were all violations of Section 65(a)(14)—the crimes committed by CCL holders were
only unlawful concealed carry, not murder, assault, armed robbery, or other violent crimes.

 

 

Quote

Defendants here offered no evidence connecting concealed carry by CCL
holders to any threat to public safety, much less a threat within the regulated area, the FPDCC.
Though their burden is lower than that of the defendant in Kole, and expert testimony is not a
requirement for upholding the constitutionality of a firearm regulation, they face the same kind of
problem: Defendants had to provide some link between the regulated activity and their interest in
public safety, but that link is not in the record.

 

 

Quote

As a consequence of its ruling in Plaintiff’s favor on Count I, the Court finds the firearms
regulations at issue to be unconstitutionally overbroad. Nevertheless, the Court temporarily stays
enforcement of its ruling for six months—i.e., until March 15, 2022—to provide the General
Assembly an opportunity to act definitively on this matter if it chooses to do so.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 12:28 PM, Molly B. said:
Quote

Defendants here offered no evidence connecting concealed carry by CCL holders to any threat to public safety, much less a threat within the regulated area, the FPDCC. Though their burden is lower than that of the defendant in Kole, and expert testimony is not a requirement for upholding the constitutionality of a firearm regulation, they face the same kind of problem: Defendants had to provide some link between the regulated activity and their interest in public safety, but that link is not in the record.

 

 

Intermediate scrutiny: The government has to show that a law actually accomplishes its intended purpose.

 

The Federal District Court is saying that the law prohibiting otherwise legal carry does not pass intermediate scrutiny. The logical conundrum is that the government could argue that the law prohibiting otherwise legal carry is exactly why otherwise legal carriers aren't committing violent crimes in the forest preserve. Because we're obeying the law, we aren't committing violent crimes. Thus the law works as intended.

 

A stronger argument would be to ask how many legal carriers commit violent crimes outside the forest preserves, where the prohibition does not exist. A similar case in Delaware a few years ago asked an even better question: Could the state show how many illegal carriers decided not to commit violent crimes upon seeing the sign prohibiting firearms in the park? (Hint: It couldn't.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 5 months later...
  • Molly B. pinned this topic
On 3/15/2022 at 2:05 PM, burningspear said:

The decision in the Solomon case, the Forest Preserve case, was stayed until sometime in June, 2022. 

June 7th 2022

 

to give the time for the Legislature and Governor to pass HB4296 and sign it into law.

 

it will pass sadly

 

It verbally “narrows” where someone with a CCL can carry there, yet in reality still makes it pointless to be able to carry at all.

 

hopefully, new litigation will come around on that bull as well.

 

As well as maybe an appeal, but sadly the way the opinion and stay was written. The state won’t appeal, and tweak can’t appeal because we basically won to begin with. So it causes us to have to file NEW litigation on the NEW law.

 

Hopefully the NYSPRA opinion coming from SCOTUS in May or June will help with new litigation efforts. We shall see though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2021 at 1:12 PM, jim123 said:

Nice but I want to finally go for a walk in the woods today. 

Not without getting mugged raped or killed and no form of self defense allowed on your part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: For the reasons stated on the record, Intervenor-Defendant's motion for extension of stay of enforcement of the Court's September 13, 2021 order 130 is granted to and including June 7, 2022. Oral motion of Cook County Forest Preserve District Defendants to join motion to stay is also granted. A joint status report is due upon the earlier of (a) the Governor's signature enacting into law HR4296 or similar legislation or (b) sixty days after the last day of the 2022 legislative session. Plaintiff's motions for costs and attorneys fees [125, 127] are entered and continued to the next status hearing and counsel are requested to try to reach a negotiated resolution to those motions. If counsel would like a referral to Magistrate Judge Finnegan, they may contact the Courtroom Deputy at any time. Emailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 03/03/2022)
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7430047/solomon-v-madigan/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

In every other state in the union there was great hubbub, hue and cry about "Blood In The Streets™", kids getting guns from ice cream trucks and increases in criminal use due to CCW licensees - none of which have yet occurred (still waiting from FL & GA in the 80's). 

 

Typically after such predictions go unfulfilled, the legislatures start to relax the rules about concealed carriers after nearly a decade, usually expanding the places they can carry, reducing fees, eliminating live fire quals...but not (D)a graft state of Ill-annoys. After all, we evil unsympathic child killing mass shooting (by association) gun owners dared to expose their dirty laundry in a Federal Court, as well as the incompetence of their decades long legal argument of "because we can, it might make society safer (even though we cannot prove it) and it's not nonsensical". 

 

So now it appears we sit and wait for them to whittle away at our hard-won Right until they get to the point where it becomes so egregious that the Federal courts recongize it - assuming anyone is around that is willing to actually fight rather than play the role of Judenrat and negotiate for laws that are onerous but less so.

 

So glad I decided to stay here instead of moving to Idaho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, the joys of Dem political activists masquerading as "jurists."  Yes, the County is unconstitutionally depriving CCL holders of their rights, sooooo .... let's just let them keep doing so, until they can reword the law at their leisure, create a new unconstitutional law to deprive you of your rights, and force those bad bad gun owners to have to file yet another lawsuit, and we can do the same thing to them all over again!

 

Just what "compelling government interest" did the FPD have to protect that would allow them to continue depriving citizens of their constitutional rights by continuing to enforce the law that the court found to be unconstitutional?  You can't make this **** up!  Calling a conglomeration of robed activists paying lip service to checks and balances in Democrat jurisdictions "courts" is like calling professional wrestlers "competitors." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/7/2022 at 10:46 PM, mab22 said:

So what changes, what was the point of the suite, did the attorneys once again make bank, and nothing changes?
From https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/102/HB/10200HB4296.htm

 

 

Oh, we got CC Forest Preserves, but in the long standing tradition, if gun owners get something, they have to give something - or 27 somethings.

 

Just looked at the House Amendment - 

 

(14) Any adventure course or zipline, aquatic center, campground, equestrian center, nature center grounds, picnic grove, playground, sledding hill, sledding hill grounds, and any parking area of any of the aforementioned under the control of the Cook County Forest Preserve District, and any public or private gathering or special event conducted on property that requires the issuance of a permit by real property under the control of the Cook County Forest Preserve District.

 

So fewer restrictions and those are limited to CCFP and, of course, the Botanic.

 

 

Edited by Tango7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

So I've been tracking this topic to provide as updated a curriculum as I can. The only change in prohibited areas that made it to Public Act level was the removal of "Riverboat" and addition of "Illinois" to Section 16:

 

(16) Any building, real property, or parking area under
    the control of a gaming facility licensed under the
    Illinois Riverboat Gambling Act or the Illinois Horse
    Racing Act of 1975, including an inter-track wagering
    location licensee.

 

So what will happen to visitors to the CCFP? Also, will this make the slot shops prohibited places? I think they're covered under the Video Gaming Act, but figured I'd ask.

Edited by Tango7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2022 at 11:36 PM, Tango7 said:

So I've been tracking this topic to provide as updated a curriculum as I can. The only change in prohibited areas that made it to Public Act level was the removal of "Riverboat" and addition of "Illinois" to Section 16:

 

(16) Any building, real property, or parking area under
    the control of a gaming facility licensed under the
    Illinois Riverboat Gambling Act or the Illinois Horse
    Racing Act of 1975, including an inter-track wagering
    location licensee.

 

So what will happen to visitors to the CCFP? Also, will this make the slot shops prohibited places? I think they're covered under the Video Gaming Act, but figured I'd ask.

 

The ILGA doesn't have to amend the law because a lawsuit found the law to be unconstitutional. The law just becomes unenforceable due to an injunction against its enforcement. As I write this (and for about another month yet) the law is still enforceable, although I'm not sure if anyone is going to try.

  • As part of the decision issued on 13 September 2021, the injunction against enforcement of 430 ILCS 66/65(a)(14) was stayed until 13 March 2022, so that the ILGA could look at the law and possibly amend it to be constitutional. Despite some noise last session, the ILGA didn't do that.
  • On 2 March 2022, Kwame Raoul "intervened" [The State of Illinois wasn't a party to the suit.] to ask for an extension to the stay. On 3 March, the judge granted an extension on the stay until 7 June 2022.

It's possible that Raoul could request a further stay on the injunction before June 7. If there are no further extensions, then on June 8 Cook County Forest Preserves become just like every other forest preserve in the state with regard to concealed carry.

 

As for "slot shops," I believe the change in 430 ILCS 66/65(a)(16) mirrored an amendment to 230 ILCS 10. I don't gamble, but if I understand correctly, any place that has a gambling license is now required to post. If the gambling part of an establishment (e.g., restaurant) is a separate section of the building, I suppose only that part could be posted. If there are video slots or whatever everywhere, that could be a problem. I'm uncertain whether only a portion of an establishment could be a prohibited area, but ultimately I'd fall back on the posting requirement. If it's posted, then it's posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/20/2022 at 11:01 PM, Texasgrillchef said:

What’s the latest on this case?

 

As of June 8, an injunction goes into effect prohibiting the enforcement of the Cook County FP carve-out. Raoul and Foxx have up until June 7 to ask for an extension to the stay. Even if they ask, I doubt it would be granted. Ask again on June 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if he doesn’t ask for one, or one isn’t granted. Is it to late for him to file an appeal? Or File a Cert Petition with SCOTUS?

 

Has HB4296 passed yet. What is it’s status?

Edited by Texasgrillchef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2022 at 4:41 PM, Texasgrillchef said:

So if he doesn’t ask for one, or one isn’t granted. Is it to late for him to file an appeal? Or File a Cert Petition with SCOTUS?

...

 

The current ruling is from a district court. The next level up is the 7th Circuit Appeals Court, not SCOTUS. The deadline for filing a circuit appeal is 30 days from the district decision. 30 days from this decision expired in October last year.

 

Simple answer: It's too late for court action. The ILGA could pass another law at any time, but hasn't so far.

 

IMO the proposed law that semi-died in process (technically it could still be resurrected) has the same problems as the original law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People were skeptical about why Cook County preserves needed more special treatment compared to preserves in the other 101 counties.  They argued that there are a lot of people in Cook County forest preserves, and there might be drinking.  But that's true in a lot of places and it hasn't been a problem.  It's really just Cook County trying to be Cook County, without regard to folks' rights, and a "special" legislator egging them on.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it the ILGA adjourned this current session on April 8th. The next legislative session won’t start till January 2023. Am I correct?

 

I do see where that bill could be resurrected in the next legislative session though. I do agree that it may have the same issues and could end up back in court as well.

 

I doubt a further stay will be requested. Even if one is requested I doubt it will be granted. It looks like to me the whole point of the stay going until June 7th, is to see if HB4296 was passed and signed by the governor. And he had until that date to sign. Thus if it did pass and he did sign. Then no need for the stay to continue, as well as if it didn’t pass. Then things would be like they should be.

 

After reading HB4296, I can understand why it kind of died or came to a temporary standstill. I am betting that it came to a few peoples attention that their might still be some constitutional issues with that bill. 
 

Also I think they are waiting on what is said in the NYSPRA opinion. Why do I say that? Because during oral arguments on November 3rd. Comments and questions were raised in regards to “sensitive places and/or times”. If comment is made in the SCOTUS opinion about time/places then that would impact HB4296 as well as future litigation. Either in a positive or negative way. Therefore they halted advancement of the bill. Now that’s JMHO. But you can’t deny that there isn’t some logic to that thinking.

 

In the mean time, we get some increased freedoms in carrying for a while.

 

What is said in NYSPRA opinion will have huge impacts nationwide in what states do about carrying and permits. JMHO
 

 

Edited by Texasgrillchef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/7/2022 at 10:19 PM, Texasgrillchef said:

So as an instructor can I now say that area is now no longer off limits then when teaching the required course?

 

In about 2.5 hours from now, yes. The injunction against the enforcement of the forest preserve ban goes into effect June 8. Today was the last day of the ban.

 

The ban is still the law. It just cannot be enforced legally.

 

Edit to add: I eagerly await the flood of news of open warfare taking place in the forest preserve. (* crickets chirp *)

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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