Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: SCIll: 2A protects carrying outside the home. People v. Aguilar (1ll. Sept 12, 2013)

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,163

    SCIll: 2A protects carrying outside the home. People v. Aguilar (1ll. Sept 12, 2013)

    "As the Seventh Circuit correctly noted, neither Heller nor McDonald expressly limits the second amendment’s protections to the home. On the contrary, both decisions contain language strongly suggesting if not outright confirming that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home. Moreover, if Heller means what it says, and “individual self-defense” is indeed “the central component” of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, then it would make little sense to restrict that right to the home, as “[c]onfrontations are not limited to the home.” Indeed, Heller itself recognizes as much when it states that “the right to have arms *** was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.”

    http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinion...013/112116.pdf

    Eugene Volokh: This deepens the lower appellate court on split on whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry a gun in public. Most of the decisions say “no.” See, e.g., Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 96 (2d Cir. 2012); Woolard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013); People v. Dykes, 209 P.3d 1, 49 (Cal. 2009); Little v. United States, 989 A.2d 1096 (D.C. 2010); People v. Dawson, 934 N.E.2d 598 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010); Williams v. State, 10 A.3d 1167 (Md. 2011); Commonwealth v. McCollum, 945 N.E.2d 937 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011); People v. Perkins, 880 N.Y.S.2d 209 (App. Div. 2009). Indeed, McCollum went so far as to say that possessing a gun in someone else’s home can be punished, without regard to whether the resident has allowed or even asked the gun owner to bring the gun.

    On the other side are Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012), plus now the Illinois Supreme Court decision, Ex parte Roque Cesar Nido Lanausse, No. KLAN201000562 (P.R. Cir. 2011), http://www.volokh.com/?p=46217, which seems to hold the same, and People v. Yanna, 824 N.W.2d 241 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012), which so states, albeit in dictum.

    Because of this split, I expect that if the state of Illinois chooses to petition for certiorari, there would be a good chance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s agreeing to review the case. But Illinois decided not to petition for review from Moore v. Madigan, so I suspect they wouldn’t do so here.

    Note that the Illinois court also upheld the ban on handgun possession by under-18-year-olds. On this, the court is consistent with the other courts that have considered the question.
    http://www.volokh.com/2013/09/12/ill...-outside-home/
    Last edited by Nightmare; 09-12-2013 at 11:37 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Good read!
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,202
    Does this mean open carry is constitutional now in IL. Looks that way
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  4. #4
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Well the ruling said that the law banning Carrying a handgun was invalid on its face, since the state now regulates concealed carry, and since one has a right to carry outside the home, I don't see what crime someone could be charged with for OC
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    240
    The "crime" of AUUW is no more. The Illinois Supreme court unanimously struck down the statue today. Illinois did pass a concealed carry law with a Chicago driven foot dragging timetable that won't have the first permits issued until next year. So, I suppose that covers concealed carry. However. What about Open Carry? Is Open Carry legal as of now in Illinois? Maybe? Possible? Fingers crossed, but to this non lawyer, it sure looks like it is.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766
    According to this thread, there are ongoing [frantic?] discussions between prosecutors in Illinois to determine the impact of this ruling.

    http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index...howtopic=41252

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South end of the state, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    314
    Yep , when the SAs are dumfounded on exactly what a ruling means you know you must be in Illinois. To bad the courts don't have the fortitude to just come out and say this is how things are now.

  8. #8
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    I suppose the question would be what other law can an OCer be charged with now that this one was struck down? (other than something like disorderly conduct...I am not really familiar with IL law)
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Since it appears that the IL Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on concealed carry, and seemingly recognized it as a RIGHT, it looks like IL's CCW law is void.

    Comments?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    240
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    I suppose the question would be what other law can an OCer be charged with now that this one was struck down? (other than something like disorderly conduct...I am not really familiar with IL law)
    I've been looking and haven't found one yet. But, IANAL.


    Gort. Klaatu barada nikto.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ILLINOIS
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    Since it appears that the IL Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on concealed carry, and seemingly recognized it as a RIGHT, it looks like IL's CCW law is void.

    Comments?
    It appears that it would be, but, The members of illinoiscarry that are lawyers are saying that the ruling only effects the old UAAW before July 9 which was declared unconstitutional. It supposedly doesn't effect the CCW law, because the UAAW is considered a NEW law. They are saying that this opinions opens a whole new can of worms that can lead to new lawsuits challenging the new CCW law.

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by RANDYT View Post
    It appears that it would be, but, The members of illinoiscarry that are lawyers are saying that the ruling only effects the old UAAW before July 9 which was declared unconstitutional. It supposedly doesn't effect the CCW law, because the UAAW is considered a NEW law. They are saying that this opinions opens a whole new can of worms that can lead to new lawsuits challenging the new CCW law.
    I'll buy that - but only because the new law needs to be challenged. In the meanwhile, it sure seems to me that OC would be constitutional.

  13. #13
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by RANDYT View Post
    It appears that it would be, but, The members of illinoiscarry that are lawyers are saying that the ruling only effects the old UAAW before July 9 which was declared unconstitutional. It supposedly doesn't effect the CCW law, because the UAAW is considered a NEW law. They are saying that this opinions opens a whole new can of worms that can lead to new lawsuits challenging the new CCW law.
    I understand where they are coming from. But, so long as it is not possible for a person to exercise their rights lawfully(permits won't be issued this year) then the law making the exercise of that right should be unenforceable, but that word(should) is worth about as much as it weighs.

  14. #14
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    the law stands as long as it is law. despite court rulings. unless the courts comes out and says the law is out right unconstitutional. it is in effect till the legislature changes it.

    that being said though is there any way around the law

    what if you guys have a carry party/picnic on private property, or say you rent somewhere to have one, and give everyone permission to carry

    you could also have rallies near the borders or in very rule areas. get the news media involved
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

Posting Permissions

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