Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: 12/11/2012 Federal Court strikes down Illinois ban on CCW!!!

  1. #1
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    12/11/2012 Federal Court strikes down Illinois ban on CCW!!!

    Surprisingly, it doesn't seem to be easy to find articles on this decision. Here's one:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...rles-c-w-cooke

    The “constitutional right of armed self defense is broader than the right to have a gun in one’s home.” So says a Chicago federal court, which this morning struck down Illinois’s ban on carrying guns in public (America’s last such ban) and granted the state legislature 180 days to draft concealed-carry legislation.
    180 days to draft legislation.......

    Anyone want to start an office pool on how long before the appeal?

    .....you know it's coming.

    Here's another article from STL Today:

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/g...3187a7cb9.html

    Neither article's links to the actual ruling seem to work, but here's a STLToday patch to a viewable copy:

    http://www.stltoday.com/federal-cour...6bc0d6493.html

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613

    Read the decision -

    Active link to the Court of Appeals decision:

    7th Circuit Court overturns Illinois concealed carry ban
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Trip20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wausau Area
    Posts
    527
    Congrats!

    Here's another link to more reading material...

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Illinois - You need to OPPOSE any concealed-carry legislation PERIOD! Call your pro-gun legislators (you don't need all of them on board, just enough to block the forthcoming legislation).

    Doing so will result in de facto Vermont-style Constitutional Carry in Illinois after the 180 day stay has expired!

    Don't think for one instance that there is anything to gain by passing legislation that will only create a 'privilege' out of the 'RIGHT' you've just had returned to you!

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    Illinois - You need to OPPOSE any concealed-carry legislation PERIOD! Call your pro-gun legislators (you don't need all of them on board, just enough to block the forthcoming legislation).

    Doing so will result in de facto Vermont-style Constitutional Carry in Illinois after the 180 day stay has expired!

    Don't think for one instance that there is anything to gain by passing legislation that will only create a 'privilege' out of the 'RIGHT' you've just had returned to you!
    On what do you base your statement? I see no such verbiage in the decision.

    What I do see is:

    Nevertheless we order our man-date 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.

    What I do not see are the Court's options if the legislators do not act. Hold them all in contempt? That would be interesting.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    On what do you base your statement? I see no such verbiage in the decision.

    What I do see is:

    Nevertheless we order our man-date 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.

    What I do not see are the Court's options if the legislators do not act. Hold them all in contempt? That would be interesting.
    Hi Grapeshot,

    See the part in the opinion mandating a Permanent Injunction (on the existing Illinois Statutes that currently ban public carry). After 180 days the Permanent Injunction remains (it is permanent after all), hence no law will remain on the books forbidding carry in public (thus de facto Vermont-style carry). The court is only allowing time for the legislature to adopt a carry statute (if it so chooses), I do not read the opinion to require such legislation.

    While the opinion might seem to encourage, if not expect, passage of legislation, it does not go so far as to explicitly condition the unconstitutionality of the Illinois Statutes (affected by the Permanent Injection) on whether or not less restrictive legislation is indeed passed. The current Illinois regulatory framework banning public carry is unconstitutional as it stands now. Those statutes will not become constitutional once again simply because the Illinois legislature opted not to pass any replacement legislation.

    Of course, you can be sure that Chicago will attempt to pass its own local restrictions (I don't believe Illinois has state-wide preemption) but then again Chicago will do everything it can to prevent its own residents from carrying regardless of whether the legislature passes a carry bill or not.

    Now I'm presuming that the statute(s) which have just been struck down 'permanently' forbid both open & concealed carry. I believe that to be the case. Therefore the title of this thread might be more appropriately titled "Federal Court strikes down Illinois ban on public carry!!!" But either way, even if there was a separate statute that forbade open carry (which was not struck down) then after 180 days Illinois would merely have permit-less concealed carry and not open carry. But if, as I suspect, the statute(s) that were struck down today covered all forms of carry (whether open or concealed) then Illinois would have de facto Constitutional Carry.
    Last edited by OC4me; 12-11-2012 at 05:45 PM.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    See what happens when you take a nap!

    Whoooo! Go judge Posner (a justice who has never been though of as even remotely friendly to RKBA)! Beyond the permanent injunction (stayed for 180 days to let the legislature try to come up with something) there are some mighty digs at the states with highly restrictive carry laws.

    Read http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...hey-don-t.html in conjunction with Judge Posner's decision and tell me if the PSH fear of horses fainting, women stampeding, and shootouts over parking spaces is rapidly circling the drain (which, BTW, does not appear to be overflowing with blood).

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Minocqua, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    179
    In two weeks, I'll have been ccing in Wisconsin for one year! CONGRATULATIONS ILLINOIS, happy for you!

  10. #10
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by JTHunter View Post
    If I remember correctly (NO guarantee!), Illinois is a "home-rule" state.
    The State Police website has a "Municipal Ordinances Relating To Firearms" page with towns listed on the right that have ordinaces that may differ than the states.
    Here's the link - http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/ordinances.cfm.
    You do realize that all of these local codes fall when the support falls?

    I will find it interesting to see just what does happen...No, there won't be any contempt, unless they try to enforce a law that is no longer valid, then, whoever attempts to enforce that law will be the one in contempt....any bets on the City Of Chicago?

    Actually, what I would expect is just what Judge Posner has given the 180 days to do...write a reasonable law that covers everyone in the state. In the Chicago Tribune writeup did you read alderman Brookin's (head of the black caucus) statement...bodes well for a reasonable law.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    True, complete bans (by local ordinance) would also fall with this same ruling, however, without preemption, there is absolutely nothing to stop localities from passing very restrictive alternatives (and Chicago certainly will do just that).

    Better to fight over permitless carry vs. shall issue than shall-issue vs. may-issue!

    If, anything is passed, it had better include state-wide preemption, no compromises on that...period!
    Last edited by OC4me; 12-11-2012 at 06:58 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Gobles, MI
    Posts
    178
    Congrats to all in Illinois!!!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Gobles, MI
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    If, anything is passed, it had better include state-wide preemption, no compromises on that...period!
    +100!

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/NY15YMVF.pdf

    Opinion link that one can DL w/o crapbook


    I cannot believe 1 judge dissented ... he should resign

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    Hi Grapeshot,

    See the part in the opinion mandating a Permanent Injunction (on the existing Illinois Statutes that currently ban public carry). After 180 days the Permanent Injunction remains (it is permanent after all), hence no law will remain on the books forbidding carry in public (thus de facto Vermont-style carry). The court is only allowing time for the legislature to adopt a carry statute (if it so chooses), I do not read the opinion to require such legislation.

    While the opinion might seem to encourage, if not expect, passage of legislation, it does not go so far as to explicitly condition the unconstitutionality of the Illinois Statutes (affected by the Permanent Injection) on whether or not less restrictive legislation is indeed passed. The current Illinois regulatory framework banning public carry is unconstitutional as it stands now. Those statutes will not become constitutional once again simply because the Illinois legislature opted not to pass any replacement legislation.

    Of course, you can be sure that Chicago will attempt to pass its own local restrictions (I don't believe Illinois has state-wide preemption) but then again Chicago will do everything it can to prevent its own residents from carrying regardless of whether the legislature passes a carry bill or not.

    Now I'm presuming that the statute(s) which have just been struck down 'permanently' forbid both open & concealed carry. I believe that to be the case. Therefore the title of this thread might be more appropriately titled "Federal Court strikes down Illinois ban on public carry!!!" But either way, even if there was a separate statute that forbade open carry (which was not struck down) then after 180 days Illinois would merely have permit-less concealed carry and not open carry. But if, as I suspect, the statute(s) that were struck down today covered all forms of carry (whether open or concealed) then Illinois would have de facto Constitutional Carry.
    Needed to read it much slower this time. Appreciate the clarification and pointing me in the right direction.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7

    Court Shoots Down Illinois Concealed Carry Ban


  17. #17
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Let the flip-flopping begin!

    I'm going to make a prediction.

    For the longest time, the Chicago politicians, and every other anti-gunner opposed even the mention of CCW. If a downstate legislator brought up CCW, or CCW legislation.....

    ....AHHHH! THE SKY IS FALLING! BLOOD WILL RUN IN THE STREETS! ABSOLUTELY NO CCW!

    ....now, the ball is firmly in the pro-2A court (pun?).

    Realizing that unrestricted carry will be the result in 180 days:

    Watch all these politicians so firmly against CCW laws......... suddenly become their greatest advocates! FLIP-FLOP!

    Oh, CCW laws are good! We need CCW laws. Let's put our heads together and pass this much needed legislation. Yeah. CCW. That's just what we need.

    Well, if flip-flopping is so grand........

    ....and the ball is in OUR court....

    ....the result is simple:

    Illinoisians need to call their legislators and urge them to hold out like the second Alamo.

    After all, the pro-2A legislators hold all the marbles. If they were smart, they would put the kabosh to any talk of CCW laws (Just like the anti-gunners have done for the past decade....remember?)

    What SHOULD happen is unrestricted carry. However, the sheeple have been brainwashed and, I believe, are unable to come to terms with the newfound freedom. This requirement for laws has even pervaded the supposed pro-2A community. On other boards, I keep seeing discussions about what the new laws should be. Although I know "new laws" are, most likely, inevitable.....I can't seem to grasp the idea that the majority of Illinois residents can't wrap their minds around the idea of life WITHOUT them.

    It's almost like the consternation of telling slaves, "YOU ARE NOW FREE!"...

    ...only to watch them begin bickering about how tight their new shackles should be affixed.

    Well, since everyone is arguing about how restrictive the new laws (shackles) should be, here are a few ideas about how to make the new chains you want more agreeable:

    1) shall issue
    2) no training requirement
    3) full state pre-emption
    4) no sheriff's fees
    5) lifetime validity (which will probably never happen, so at least a 5 year renewal at minimum.)
    6) national reciprocity

    Heck, you should just make the already issued FOID cards a defacto carry permit. That would work.

    If your pro-2A legislators are worth their salt, they will realize that all these things should be the result of any new legislation (since it appears that Illinoisians can't exist without it). If any new legislation contains crap such as may-issue or anything else....your supposedly pro-2A legislators aren't really pro-2A....because if they were, they would realize that THEY hold the cards. They can wave unrestricted carry over any politician unwilling to grant any concession in pending CCW legislation.
    Last edited by Superlite27; 12-12-2012 at 10:27 AM. Reason: reciprocity...can't forget reciprocity.

  18. #18
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    On what do you base your statement? I see no such verbiage in the decision.

    What I do see is:

    Nevertheless we order our man-date 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.

    What I do not see are the Court's options if the legislators do not act. Hold them all in contempt? That would be interesting.
    OC4me is partly correct, If the state fails to act we will have constitutional carry, but without state preemption you can have a patchwork of local ordinances governing carry. The only upside is they would all be misdemeanors or petty offenses as opposed to a felony.

  19. #19
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013
    About damn time. You should see the anti's on forums and message boards losing their minds over this. "Carnage in the streets! OMGWTFBBQ!". It's hilarious really......

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Algonquin
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by lockman View Post
    OC4me is partly correct, If the state fails to act we will have constitutional carry, but without state preemption you can have a patchwork of local ordinances governing carry. The only upside is they would all be misdemeanors or petty offenses as opposed to a felony.
    Constitutional carry please.

  21. #21
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    This is great news not only for residents of Illinois but residents of all of the states - although once again we witness the federal government "enforcing" its INTERPRETATION of the 2nd Amendment onto a state government.

    I get a bit uncomfortable seeing the federal courts continually referring back to English law, custom, and practice when attempting to map out the parameters of the RTKBA as it has been historically understood and recognized by the people of these United States. This distinction is especially significant given recent suppression of the free exercise of that right by the British people. It was an interesting review of English history in the Heller decision, but the courts should henceforth confine their research to the American colonial, and constitutional republican experience regarding OUR RTKBA.

  22. #22
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Quote Originally Posted by rushcreek2 View Post
    This is great news not only for residents of Illinois but residents of all of the states - although once again we witness the federal government "enforcing" its INTERPRETATION of the 2nd Amendment onto a state government.

    I get a bit uncomfortable seeing the federal courts continually referring back to English law, custom, and practice when attempting to map out the parameters of the RTKBA as it has been historically understood and recognized by the people of these United States. This distinction is especially significant given recent suppression of the free exercise of that right by the British people. It was an interesting review of English history in the Heller decision, but the courts should henceforth confine their research to the American colonial, and constitutional republican experience regarding OUR RTKBA.
    Case law of the period in which our country was founded, cannot be considered w/o including those decisions that occurred prior. The latter is dependent on the former. It is the basis, the very foundation, of our system of laws.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    And now we see how bad it's going to be

    Never mind - I read the wrong bill.

    stay safe.
    Last edited by skidmark; 12-14-2012 at 06:56 AM.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  24. #24
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Previously, I've been advocating Illinoisians to urge their legislators to hold out, not pass legislation, and wait for Constitutional Carry to arrive in 180 days.

    However, I'm going to modify my previous belief and concede that CCW legislation needs to be enacted for several reasons.

    1) Reciprocity.
    2) Confusion regarding "Home rule" status.

    If there is no CCW permit legislation, no permit is needed, therefore, no "permission slip" or I.D. card. How will Illinoisians carry in other states that require them? There needs to be implimentation of a permit system to allow for residents to have documentation in order to carry elsewhere other than Illinois.

    There seems to be some confusion regarding the legality of unrestricted carry in home rule cities. While municipalities are unable to define felonies, places like Chicago may still pass local ordinances against any type of carry, and toss people in the slammer for the misdemeanor of carrying a gun. Then, you can sit in Cook County jail for a year while the courts argue for your release, attempt to invalidate unconstitutional laws by municipalities, and all the legal wrangling Chicago suburbs will ALMOST DEFINITELY carry on with regardless of the recent 7th CCOA ruling.

    I have come to the conclusion that it would be better to simply pre-empt all the B.S. and pass a CCW permit system with as few "restrictions" (read: Hopefully NONE) as possible. At minimum:

    1) Full state pre-emption (discard any namby-pamby Chicago B.S.)
    2) MANDATORY SHALL ISSUE (discard any local sheriff B.S.)
    3) No training requirement
    4) Inconsequential issue fee (or none at all)
    5) Full National Reciprocity (many states won't recognize permits from states that won't recognize theirs)
    6) Long expiration date (or lifetime issuance)

    Ideally, I believe making the FOID card a defacto carry permit would do the trick. I believe they're good for 10 years, as well. (That may have changed since I fled....(er....moved away).... from Illinois 10 years ago.)

    Many issues that might be vague would be specifically addressed by a CCW permit system. Not as a means to impose restrictions, but as a means to firmly shrug off those that might be attempted to be foisted on gun owners in the future due to lack of definition that unrestricted carry would entail.
    Last edited by Superlite27; 12-14-2012 at 10:11 AM. Reason: repare misspelings

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Louisville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by Praying Mantis View Post
    Anyone realize in this video the NRA guy did NOT safely keep his muzzle down range? (During the reload)

    I know while not much related... EXAMPLES are the best guide!

    On the other hand, congrats to Illinios!
    Last edited by kywildcat581; 12-14-2012 at 02:34 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •