• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Superlite27

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
God's Country, Missouri
Surprisingly, it doesn't seem to be easy to find articles on this decision. Here's one:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...linoiss-concealed-carry-ban-charles-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/...cle_b4c89ec3-e9cf-53e4-9b58-9fb3187a7cb9.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-cou...pdf_3a4915d6-d7aa-57fc-88dc-57c6bc0d6493.html
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
750
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
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!
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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. :p
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
750
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
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. :p

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:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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/articles/2012/12/10/what-guns-do-and-what-they-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.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
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.
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
750
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
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:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

Praying Mantis

New member
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
7
Location
VA
Court Shoots Down Illinois Concealed Carry Ban

[video=youtube;W-6_Ej9tFnE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-6_Ej9tFnE&feature=youtu.be[/video]
 

Superlite27

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
God's Country, Missouri
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:

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
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. :p

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.
 

lckstckn2smknbrls

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
11
Location
Algonquin
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.
 
Top