Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Court strikes down concealed gun law in Illinois

Posted by on Dec. 11, 2012 at 3:12 PM
  • 10 Replies
1 mom liked this

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."

David Sigale, an attorney who represented the Second Amendment Foundation in the lawsuit, called the decision by the appeals court in Chicago “historic.”

“What we are most pleased about is how the court has recognized that the Second Amendment is just as, if not at times more, important in public as it is in the home,” he said. “The right of self-defense doesn’t end at your front door.”

In the opinion, Posner wrote that “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.”

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, a Democrat, is giving itself time to examine the ruling before deciding whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The court gave 180 days before its decision will be returned to the lower court to be implemented,” said Natalie Bauer, Madigan’s spokeswoman. “That time period allows our office to review what legal steps can be taken and enables the legislature to consider whether it wants to take action." 

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."

House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, a longtime gun control advocate, said she hoped the state would appeal the ruling. But Currie also said lawmakers must “get cracking” on how to respond to the ruling and begin parsing its key points.

Currie, D-Chicago, said that “justices surely do not mean that we would have to have wide-open” laws in Illinois. She said Illinois must now look at what other states are doing, such as disallowing guns in day-care centers and other locations.

“If we need to change the law, let us at least craft a law that is very severely constrained and narrowly tailored so that we don’t invite guns out of control on each of our city’s streets,” Currie said. “I don’t want people out of control wandering the streets with guns that are out of control.”

Rep. Brandon Phelps, who has repeatedly sponsored concealed weapons legislation, hailed the measure as a “mandate."

“The justices more or less said Illinois has a mandate to get something passed within 180 days… to pass a concealed-carry law in the state of Illinois,” said Phelps, a Democrat from Downstate Harrisburg.

“I never thought we’d get a victory of that magnitude,” Phelps said.

Phelps fought unsuccessfully in the House to pass concealed weapons legislation with a long set of restrictions, but he warned opponents of his legislation may regret they had not supported it when they had a chance. Now, he said, he “can’t see us” going forward with legislation that has as many restrictions as the bill that failed.

The prior bill largely limited carrying weapons to when a person was in a car, walking into a house and out on a sidewalk, and it specifically disallowed guns to be carried in churches, schools, gymnasiums, sporting events, bars and businesses, Phelps said.

He said no decision has been made on which restrictions in his previous legislation would be removed in a new bill.

Phelps warned that gun control groups who might want to appeal the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court might put strict laws in other states in jeopardy. He said he would consult with the National Rifle Association and the Illinois State Rifle Association.

A spokeswoman for Gov. Pat Quinn said the administration is reviewing the decision. The governor has previously said he was firmly opposed to any law allowing citizens to carry loaded guns in public. He threatened to veto previous attempts by lawmakers to pass legislation allowing concealed carry in Illinois.

A spokeswoman for Mayor Rahm Emanuel said city lawyers were reading the court ruling and would issue a comment this afternoon.

Last March, the mayor introduced a resolution passed by the City Council in opposition to state legislation that would have allowed people to carry firearms in public. Like former Mayor Richard Daley before him, Emanuel has long been a proponent of gun control.

Under Daley, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Chicago’s handgun ban. In mid-2010, the council enacted new gun-control measures, even as many aldermen conceded it would do little to quell crime. Those regulations require that Chicago handgun owners obtain a permit after undergoing mandatory firearms training and register their weapons.

Reaction to the decision is rolling in from City Hall to the Capitol.

Ald. Howard Brookins, 21st, chairman of the City Council black caucus, welcomed the decision, saying allowing Chicagoans to carry concealed weapons would help level the playing field in neighborhoods where law-abiding citizens feel like they need firearms to protect themselves.

"Certain people will have a sense of safety and peace of mind in the ability to do it," Brookins said of conceal-carry. "I know that even people, for example, just trying to see that their loved ones get homes safely are in technical violation of all sorts of weapons violations. If you just walk out to your garage and see that your wife is coming in the house safely, and you happen to have your gun on you, you're in technical violation of our ordinance. So I would hope all these ordinances would be consolidated so there's one set of rules and people would know where the bright line is to what they can and cannot do with respect to carrying a weapon."

Brookins said he's not worried doing away with the state ban would lead to an increase in gun violence as more people walk the streets with weapons. "I think those people have a gun now, they've just been made criminals because they can't legally have it," Brookins said. "And I think the gangbangers and thugs are going to have a gun regardless."

by on Dec. 11, 2012 at 3:12 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
Claire-Huxtable
by on Dec. 11, 2012 at 3:12 PM

here is the link


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

LuvmyAiden
by Silver Member on Dec. 11, 2012 at 3:16 PM
1 mom liked this

Maybe Chicago's HUGE crime rate will go down now.

jessilin0113
by Platinum Member on Dec. 11, 2012 at 3:18 PM
Ugh.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
lga1965
by on Dec. 11, 2012 at 3:18 PM

 http://fair.org/article/gun-control-the-nra-and-the-second-amendment/

The Amendment is only 27 words: "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." While the NRA emphasizes only the last 14 words, the U.S. Supreme Court and appeals courts have focused on "well-regulated militia" and "security of a free State" to rule that Second Amendment rights are reserved to states and their militias - nowadays, the National Guards.

The truth is -- and one would hardly know it from the mass media -- that since the Supreme Court's unanimous Miller decision in 1939, all federal appeals courts, whether dominated by liberals or conservatives, have agreed that the Second Amendment does not confer gun rights on individuals. The NRA view, opposed even by such right-wing judges as Robert Bork, has been consistently rejected.

Godgaveme4
by Platinum Member on Dec. 11, 2012 at 7:14 PM

 This is great news.  My husband and i were discussing it at lunch today.  I am very happy for all people of Illinois.

I enjoyed the judges comments on the case. 

Here is the article from the Second Amendment foundation:

SAF WINS HUGE VICTORY FOR CARRY IN ILLINOIS

For Immediate Release: 12/11/2012

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has won a huge victory for the right to bear arms outside the home, with a ruling in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that declares the right to self-defense is “broader than the right to have a gun in one’s home.”

The case of Moore v. Madigan, with Judge Richard Posner writing for the majority, gives the Illinois legislature 180 days to "craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment…on the carrying of guns in public.”

“We are very happy with Judge Posner’s majority opinion,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This is a victory for Illinois citizens who have been long denied a right recognized in the other 49 states; to have the means necessary for self-defense outside the home.

“In the broader sense,” he added, “this ruling affirms that the right to keep and bear arms, itself, extends beyond the boundary of one’s front door. This is a huge victory for the Second Amendment.”

“The Second Amendment,” Judge Posner writes, “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.’ 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."

Later, Judge Posner adds, “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.”

“That the court will give Illinois lawmakers six months to craft a law allowing carry outside the home recognizes that the right to bear arms means what it says,” Gottlieb concluded. “The ball is now in the Legislature’s court, and we eagerly wait to see how well they can live up to their responsibility.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

-END-

momtimesx4
by Silver Member on Dec. 11, 2012 at 7:44 PM
1 mom liked this

Actually it has 2 seperate parts: 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.



Quoting lga1965:

 http://fair.org/article/gun-control-the-nra-and-the-second-amendment/

The Amendment is only 27 words: "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." While the NRA emphasizes only the last 14 words, the U.S. Supreme Court and appeals courts have focused on "well-regulated militia" and "security of a free State" to rule that Second Amendment rights are reserved to states and their militias - nowadays, the National Guards.

The truth is -- and one would hardly know it from the mass media -- that since the Supreme Court's unanimous Miller decision in 1939, all federal appeals courts, whether dominated by liberals or conservatives, have agreed that the Second Amendment does not confer gun rights on individuals. The NRA view, opposed even by such right-wing judges as Robert Bork, has been consistently rejected.


lga1965
by on Dec. 11, 2012 at 8:43 PM

 I know. Both parts are there in my reply. I will highlight it

Quoting momtimesx4:

Actually it has 2 seperate parts: 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.

 


Quoting lga1965:

 http://fair.org/article/gun-control-the-nra-and-the-second-amendment/

The Amendment is only 27 words: "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." While the NRA emphasizes only the last 14 words, the U.S. Supreme Court and appeals courts have focused on "well-regulated militia" and "security of a free State" to rule that Second Amendment rights are reserved to states and their militias - nowadays, the National Guards.

The truth is -- and one would hardly know it from the mass media -- that since the Supreme Court's unanimous Miller decision in 1939, all federal appeals courts, whether dominated by liberals or conservatives, have agreed that the Second Amendment does not confer gun rights on individuals. The NRA view, opposed even by such right-wing judges as Robert Bork, has been consistently rejected.

 

 

momtimesx4
by Silver Member on Dec. 11, 2012 at 8:48 PM

But most people see it as just one sentence and not seperate actionable items

Quoting lga1965:

 I know. Both parts are there in my reply. I will highlight it

Quoting momtimesx4:

Actually it has 2 seperate parts: 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.



Quoting lga1965:

 http://fair.org/article/gun-control-the-nra-and-the-second-amendment/

The Amendment is only 27 words: "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." While the NRA emphasizes only the last 14 words, the U.S. Supreme Court and appeals courts have focused on "well-regulated militia" and "security of a free State" to rule that Second Amendment rights are reserved to states and their militias - nowadays, the National Guards.

The truth is -- and one would hardly know it from the mass media -- that since the Supreme Court's unanimous Miller decision in 1939, all federal appeals courts, whether dominated by liberals or conservatives, have agreed that the Second Amendment does not confer gun rights on individuals. The NRA view, opposed even by such right-wing judges as Robert Bork, has been consistently rejected.


 


yourspecialkid
by Platinum Member on Dec. 11, 2012 at 9:31 PM

 

Quoting lga1965:

 http://fair.org/article/gun-control-the-nra-and-the-second-amendment/

The Amendment is only 27 words: "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." While the NRA emphasizes only the last 14 words, the U.S. Supreme Court and appeals courts have focused on "well-regulated militia" and "security of a free State" to rule that Second Amendment rights are reserved to states and their militias - nowadays, the National Guards.

The truth is -- and one would hardly know it from the mass media -- that since the Supreme Court's unanimous Miller decision in 1939, all federal appeals courts, whether dominated by liberals or conservatives, have agreed that the Second Amendment does not confer gun rights on individuals. The NRA view, opposed even by such right-wing judges as Robert Bork, has been consistently rejected.

 You haven't read U.S. v Miller have you?  It wasn't about the individual right to own...in fact the the individuals side of the case was not even presented/heard by the court...the case was about the National Firearms Act..and arguements were only heard from the govt.  The court ruled very narrowly for these reasons.  If you read the ruling you will find they depended heavily on the historical concept of a militia...individuals coming together for defense..not a standing army...AND laws of the day required these individuals to provide their own arms.....actually supporting the individuals right to bear arms.  The Constitution has no provision for the ending of militias.

yourspecialkid
by Platinum Member on Dec. 11, 2012 at 9:33 PM
1 mom liked this

 I am not surprised.  The SCOTUS has recently affirmed this right...TWICE.

 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)