Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Illinois Supreme Court: Second Amendment Applies Outside the Home (open carry legal?)

  1. #1
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    Illinois Supreme Court: Second Amendment Applies Outside the Home (open carry legal?)

    Today, 12 September, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment of the Bill of Rights applies to the carrying of arms outside of the home. They did this by declaring the Illinois statute which makes carry of loaded firearms outside of a persons property illegal, to be unconstitutional. From the decision

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



    We begin with section 24-1.6(a)(1),
    (a)(3)(A), which states:
    “(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated unlawful
    use of a weapon when he or she knowingly:
    (1) Carries on or about his or her person or in any
    vehicle or concealed on or about his or her person except
    when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed
    place of business any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or
    other firearm; [and]
    ***
    (3) One of the following factors is present:
    (A) the firearm possessed was uncased, loaded
    and immediately accessible at the time of the
    -4-¶ 16
    ¶ 17
    offense[.]” 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) (West
    2008).

    The court then goes on to present the arguments for and against. The Court finds that the determinations of the Seventh circuit that the second amendment and the Heller and McDonald decisions protect a right to carry arms for self defense outside of the home are persuasive, and rules the above statute to be unconstitutional under the second amendment.


    Accordingly, as the Seventh Circuit did in Moore, we here hold
    that, on its face, section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) violates the right to
    keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the second amendment to the
    United States Constitution. Defendant’s conviction under that section
    therefore is reversed.3

    Here is the footnote 3 referred to above:

    Following the decision in Moore, the General Assembly enacted the
    Firearm Concealed Carry Act, which inter alia amended the AUUW statute
    to allow for a limited right to carry certain firearms in public. See Pub. Act
    98-0063 (eff. July 9, 2013), Neither the Firearm Concealed Carry Act nor
    the amended AUUW statute is at issue in this case.

    This is a significant victory for the restoration of second amendment rights in the United States. It has implications that are just beginning to be understood.

    One of the most obvious is the potential that Illinois has become an open carry state. The statute struck down is the one that made open carry in Illinois illegal. The Firearm Concealed Carry Act deals with concealed carry, and put into place strong statewide preemption for the regulation of pistols. It created a situation where people from out of state could carry pistols in their vehicles without a concealed carry permit.

    There were separate rules that allowed local governments to regulate long guns.

    It appears that the law forbidding the open carry of handguns has been struck down, and that statewide preemption forbids local governments, including Chicago, from imposing their own local infringements.

    I would urge caution in exercising second amendment rights under this decision.

    Even in Wisconsin, where open carry has never been illegal, police are still harassing and violating the rights of open carriers.

    The dynamic that made it hard to get a shall issue concealed carry law passed in Illinois, now works to prevent a swift legislative approach to stop open carry. A simple majority of either house can stop a bill, and there is a majority of legislators in Illinois that support the second amendment.

    That this victory was obtained through criminal proceedings, instead of a carefully selected test case, makes the victory all the more interesting.

    Today, Illinois residents have moved a step closer to restoration of their second amendment rights.

    ©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

    http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/09...amendment.html
    Last edited by ccwinstructor; 09-13-2013 at 06:23 AM. Reason: attempt to make link work

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    the short version :)

    After reviewing these two lines of authority—the Illinois cases
    holding that section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) is constitutional, and the
    Seventh Circuit’s decision holding that it is not—we are convinced
    that the Seventh Circuit’s analysis is the correct one. As the Seventh
    Circuit correctly noted, neither Heller nor McDonald expressly limits
    the second amendment’s protections to the home.

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

    http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinion...nt_supreme.asp

    People v. Aguilar ...


    Very interesting indeed as CT generally has previously looked to IL for help in making decisions..of course IL is more closely related to the 7th

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,195
    My thought was some pigs must have taken flight in IL.

    You know when pigs fly
    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
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    My thought was some pigs must have taken flight in IL.

    You know when pigs fly
    Well, I think that the only reason IL did not rule this way 20+ yrs ago was that some libitards found cause just to ignore the 2nd amend in Presser (that was trounced in McDonald...sweet)

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    This is a key decision for Illinois -- invalidating an important state statute entirely.

    But it is important to recognize that the law was invalidated only because it was a "categorical" ban on carry outside the home.

    The Court holds that laws containing "reasonable" regulations may be upheld. It does not explain how one decides what is reasonable.

    But it does uphold another law banning possession of guns by 17 year olds as "reasonable."

    The reasoning for this -- it seems -- is that other courts have held such restrictions to be reasonable.

    Outside Illinois, this case has significance primarily in the diminishing number of other states that ban carry entirely.

    In those states, it probably means that the "no carry" days are very much numbered.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by JTHunter View Post
    ccwinstructor - you're link to the PDF doesn't work.
    my linky works ,,,, at least one will ..

  7. #7
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    Link fixed in original article, thanks to davidmcbeth

    Quote Originally Posted by JTHunter View Post
    ccwinstructor - you're link to the PDF doesn't work.
    DavidMcBeth has a link that works. I will duplicate it in an edit, if I can.

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by JTHunter View Post
    ccwinstructor - you're link to the PDF doesn't work.
    It's "your".

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by ccwinstructor View Post
    Today, 12 September, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment of the Bill of Rights applies to the carrying of arms outside of the home. They did this by declaring the Illinois statute which makes carry of loaded firearms outside of a persons property illegal, to be unconstitutional. From the decision

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

    We begin with section 24-1.6(a)(1),
    (a)(3)(A), which states:
    “(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated unlawful
    use of a weapon when he or she knowingly:
    (1) Carries on or about his or her person or in any
    vehicle or concealed on or about his or her person except
    when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed
    place of business any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or
    other firearm; [and]
    ***
    (3) One of the following factors is present:
    (A) the firearm possessed was uncased, loaded
    and immediately accessible at the time of the
    -4-¶ 16
    ¶ 17
    offense[.]” 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) (West
    2008).

    The court then goes on to present the arguments for and against. The Court finds that the determinations of the Seventh circuit that the second amendment and the Heller and McDonald decisions protect a right to carry arms for self defense outside of the home are persuasive, and rules the above statute to be unconstitutional under the second amendment...

    ...This is a significant victory for the restoration of second amendment rights in the United States. It has implications that are just beginning to be understood.

    One of the most obvious is the potential that Illinois has become an open carry state. The statute struck down is the one that made open carry in Illinois illegal. The Firearm Concealed Carry Act deals with concealed carry, and put into place strong statewide preemption for the regulation of pistols. It created a situation where people from out of state could carry pistols in their vehicles without a concealed carry permit.

    There were separate rules that allowed local governments to regulate long guns.

    It appears that the law forbidding the open carry of handguns has been struck down, and that statewide preemption forbids local governments, including Chicago, from imposing their own local infringements...
    Where do you see that? The law I read referred to a prohibition on concealed carry.

    So, considering that IL will eventually have legal CCW, which the court mentions as a limited "right" (BS), how will this ruling affect things?


    Comment - what a shame that the IL Supreme Court came out with this ruling a few months late.

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    Where do you see that? The law I read referred to a prohibition on concealed carry.

    So, considering that IL will eventually have legal CCW, which the court mentions as a limited "right" (BS), how will this ruling affect things?


    Comment - what a shame that the IL Supreme Court came out with this ruling a few months late.
    I'll edit my previous comment and say that it appears that since the IL Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on concealed carry, and seemingly recognized it as a RIGHT, that IL's CCW law is void.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    I'll edit my previous comment and say that it appears that since the IL Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on concealed carry, and seemingly recognized it as a RIGHT, that IL's CCW law is void.
    The statute quoted above refers to both open and concealed carry. The Court's reasoning would seem to apply to both.

  12. #12
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    I'll edit my previous comment and say that it appears that since the IL Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on concealed carry, and seemingly recognized it as a RIGHT, that IL's CCW law is void.
    Given this footnote on page 8 of the opinion (http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinion...013/112116.pdf), I don't think that your conclusion is accurate:

    Following the decision in Moore, the General Assembly enacted the
    Firearm Concealed Carry Act, which inter alia amended the AUUW statute
    to allow for a limited right to carry certain firearms in public. See Pub. Act
    98-0063 (eff. July 9, 2013), Neither the Firearm Concealed Carry Act nor
    the amended AUUW statute is at issue in this case.
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by JustaShooter View Post
    Given this footnote on page 8 of the opinion (http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinion...013/112116.pdf), I don't think that your conclusion is accurate:
    The footnote says that the laws aren't at issue, not that they're not void - which is all they can be, IMHO, based on the court's striking down of the overall carry prohibition.

    And, to repeat, the court's language of 98-0063 allowing for a limited "right" to carry is BS. You don't license a right.

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    The statute quoted above refers to both open and concealed carry. The Court's reasoning would seem to apply to both.
    I misread the statute, and I agree with you.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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