Court strikes down Illinois' concealed carry ban

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://news.yahoo.com/court-strikes-down-illinois-concealed-carry-ban-205728123.html

By By DON BABWIN and JOHN O'CONNOR | Associated Press – 11 hrs ago

HICAGO (AP) — In a major victory for gun rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a ban on carrying concealed weapons in Illinois — the only remaining state where carrying concealed weapons is entirely illegal — and gave lawmakers 180 days to write a law that legalizes it.

In overturning a lower court decision, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the ban was unconstitutional and suggested a law legalizing concealed carry is long overdue in a state where gun advocates had vowed to challenge the ban on every front.

"There is no suggestion that some unique characteristic of criminal activity in Illinois justifies the state's taking a different approach from the other 49 states," Judge Richard Posner, who wrote the court's majority opinion. "If the Illinois approach were demonstrably superior, one would expect at least one or two other states to have emulated it."

Gun rights advocates were thrilled by the decision. They have long argued that the prohibition violates the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment and what they see as Americans' right to carry guns for self-defense.

"Christmas came early for law-abiding gun owners," said state Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Democratic lawmaker from southern Illinois whose proposed legislation approving concealed carry narrowly lost in the Legislature last year. "It's a mandate."

Gov. Pat Quinn, who favors strict gun control laws, was reviewing the opinion and did not have immediate comment, according to a spokeswoman. Attorney General Lisa Madigan, whose office is responsible for defending the state's laws in court, will review the ruling before deciding whether to appeal or take other action, said spokeswoman Maura Possley.

"The court gave 180 days before its decision will be returned to the lower court to be implemented," Possley said in a statement. "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."

Richard Pearson, the executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said there is no reason why lawmakers cannot pass Phelps' bill during a weeklong legislative session in January.

"Now that the court has ruled ... we will work as soon as possible with legislators to craft a concealed carry bill for the state of Illinois," he said.

The court did order its ruling stayed 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," Posner wrote.

Phelps suggested that the court, in its 2-1 ruling, may have encouraged lawmakers to pass a far less restrictive concealed carry law than the one he proposed last year that was rejected.

"I said on the floor, 'A lot of people who voted against this, one of these days you're going to wish you did, because of all the limitations and the safety precautions we put in this bill, because one of these days the court's going to rule and you're not going to like the ruling," he said. "Today's the day."

The appellate panel's majority ruling, which was replete with historical references, argued that Illinois had not made a strong case that a gun ban was vital to public safety. It also was a signal to state lawmakers and gun-ban activists that the time to argue about the Second Amendment has passed.

"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," wrote Posner. "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."

But the dissenting judge, Ann Claire Williams, raised questions that could come up in a possible appeal or when lawmakers begin to debate and craft a new law addressing the issue.

After saying that "protecting the safety of its citizens is unquestionably a significant state interest," Williams wrote, "when firearms are carried outside the home, the safety of a broader range of citizens is at issue. The risk of being injured or killed now extends to strangers, law enforcement personnel, and other private citizens who happen to be in the area."

Gun rights advocates had been threatening to make Illinois once again the center of the national gun-control debate over the issue. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court made Chicago's 28-year-old handgun ban unenforceable, ruling that Americans have the right to have guns in their homes for protection. The city responded by approving alternative methods of restricting who can have guns.

Gun control advocates did not immediately respond to the ruling. But as other states passed concealed carry laws, they had argued that Illinois' ban was important for their stance in the national debate over gun control.

The country needs "one state people can look to and see it's still doing the right thing," Mark Walsh, director of the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said last year.

The ruling Monday stems from a lawsuit filed by a former corrections officer, Michael Moore of Champaign, a farmer, Charles Hooks of Percy in southeastern Illinois and the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

The thing is . . . that's only the framework allowing people to obtain a permit to carry a concealed gun. Take California, for example. Here it is unlawful to even carry a gun without a magazine or ammunition openly. In order to get a concealed carry permit, you need the City's police chief to give you such permit. And he won't. End of story.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

The thing is . . . that's only the framework allowing people to obtain a permit to carry a concealed gun. Take California, for example. Here it is unlawful to even carry a gun without a magazine or ammunition openly. In order to get a concealed carry permit, you need the City's police chief to give you such permit. And he won't. End of story.

You nailed it. Illinois is going to screw them yet again, but with the courts ruling it's not going to be so easy. Illinois is going to do just what you posted, and it's going to be taken to court by pro gun rights/US Constitution people. The judges will look at what this last ruling said in detail and Illinois is going to lose again.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The thing is . . . that's only the framework allowing people to obtain a permit to carry a concealed gun. Take California, for example. Here it is unlawful to even carry a gun without a magazine or ammunition openly. In order to get a concealed carry permit, you need the City's police chief to give you such permit. And he won't. End of story.

He will if you are a major campaign donor.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

He will if you are a major campaign donor.

[Rattlehead 69]

You nailed it. Illinois is going to screw them yet again, but with the courts ruling it's not going to be so easy. Illinois is going to do just what you posted, and it's going to be taken to court by pro gun rights/US Constitution people. The judges will look at what this last ruling said in detail and Illinois is going to lose again.

The problem is that every time they do that, it takes months and thousands of $$ to restore the rights that should already be there. And every time... guess who foots the bill for the state to defend its absurd decision to deny its citizenry their rights? The citizens...

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

The problem is that every time they do that, it takes months and thousands of $$ to restore the rights that should already be there. And every time... guess who foots the bill for the state to defend its absurd decision to deny its citizenry their rights? The citizens...

Agreed. It shouldn't have to go that route and the ones who will suffer are the tax payers and pro gun right people lobbying for their Constitutional rights. Illinois knows it's going to come up short in the end if it puts the screws to gun owners after this recent court decision but I don't see that stopping the Illinois politicians. The governor is big time anti gun along with the scrubs running Chicago. The government in that state stinks from the top on down.

[Darnell 8,479]

back on post #1 - Excellent ! Perhaps there will be a migration INTO Illinois after 180 days.

Whoop !

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://news.yahoo.com/court-ruling-ill-gun-ban-sets-stage-fight-080837569.html

Court ruling on Illinois gun ban sets stage for fight

By By DON BABWIN and SARA BURNETT | Associated Press – 3 hrs ago

CHICAGO (AP) — Backers of Illinois' ban on concealed weapons vowed Wednesday to fight for continued controls on gun possession, a day after a federal appeals court struck down the nation's last such prohibition as unconstitutional and ordered the state to craft a law allowing it.

Chicago aldermen joined gun control advocates in urging state Attorney General Lisa Madigan to appeal the ruling from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Gov. Pat Quinn and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said they would work with legislators to come up with a new law that would be sure to protect the public.

"I think it's important that we stress that public safety comes first," said Quinn, an ardent supporter of gun control, adding that people with a history of mental illness who are involved in domestic violence should not be able to carry weapons.

"I think that's where the people of Illinois are on this issue and anything having to do with guns and assault weapons and things like that. We cannot have those sorts of people eligible to carry loaded weapons on their person in public places, whether it be malls or churches or schools."

Quinn also said he will push for a ban on military-style assault weapons.

The ban's defenders said they expect a battle in the Legislature over the next six months as the state seeks to comply with the court order to craft a new law within 180 days. They noted that a number of states that allow concealed carry — such as Wisconsin, which approved it last year — still restrict where citizens can carry weapons.

"I expect a battle," said House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, a longtime gun control advocate. "The proponents of concealed carry have not yet carried the day."

Gun rights advocates, who long have argued that the Illinois ban violates the Second Amendment, celebrated the ruling as a major victory in their campaign to make Illinois the center of the national debate over gun control after Wisconsin tossed out its ban on concealed carry last year.

The gun rights backers interpreted the 2-1 appellate court ruling as a mandate instructing lawmakers to pass a bill allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons in public with few if any restrictions. Todd Vandermyde, a National Rifle Association lobbyist, said gun control advocates could forget any limits such as partial bans near places such as day care centers and schools.

Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said lawmakers could quickly pass an existing concealed-carry bill when they reconvene the first week of January. The bill, he said, "contains all the things — background checks, classroom time — that all the parties wanted, so it's ready to go," but he said the sponsors may not need to include all those provisions this time around.

"We bent over backwards before and tried to accommodate everybody, and they just threw it in the garbage," Pearson said. "Maybe we won't be so accommodating now."

As Chicago grapples with a spike in its murders and shootings this year, several members of the City Council said Wednesday they hope Madigan will appeal the ruling. However, that may be a long shot given the Supreme Court's recent rulings, which includes striking down Chicago's handgun ban. Madigan's office said she was reviewing the decision.

The aldermen also noted that the city has the authority to ban or restrict concealed weapons on its own. But Alderman Howard Brookins disagreed with that approach, saying the court's decision means law-abiding citizens "who jump through the hoops" to secure the proper gun permits will be able to better protect themselves.

Judge Richard Posner wrote in the majority appellate opinion that Illinois doesn't have "some unique characteristic of criminal activity" that provides an excuse for not joining the rest of the nation when it comes to concealed weapons.

But the majority included the 180-day stay of its ruling 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," Posner wrote. The fight in the Legislature would be over what constitutes "reasonable limitations."

Gun control advocates say that other states have a range of criteria for allowing concealed carry. Four states — Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming — require no permit for concealed carry.

By contrast, a number of other states — including New York and California — give law enforcement officials discretion in issuing permits and require applicants to demonstrate good cause for carrying, according to Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

In Illinois, the existing legislative proposal requires specific training for applicants, but the sponsors could choose to leave that out, Pearson said. Another possibility, he said, is requiring training from any NRA instructor, as some states require. "You get certified and you're out the door," he said.

There also is likely to be debate over where concealed weapons can be carried. For example, Wisconsin decided that gun permit holders cannot carry weapons in schools, police stations or courtrooms but can carry weapons into taverns if they aren't drinking alcohol. Private property owners can ban weapons in their buildings if they see fit.

Some gun control advocates believe their best chance is with the Supreme Court, despite recent rulings — including one overturning Chicago's handgun ban — that found citizens have a Second Amendment right to have a gun for self-defense in their homes.

Flynn Currie said she is encouraged by the court's silence on the right to carry concealed weapons and wants Madigan to appeal the ruling.

The Supreme Court's rulings on the Second Amendment were "very limited, saying the home is your castle, and it didn't apply to other places," she said. "For that reason, it's worth checking on that question."