Court strikes down Illinois concealed carry law
CHICAGO (AP) - In a big victory for gun rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a ban on carrying concealed weapons in Illinois - the only state where it had remained entirely illegal.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said state lawmakers have 180 days to write a new law that legalizes concealed carry.
Gun rights advocates long have argued that the prohibition against concealed weapons violates the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment and what they see as Americans' right to carry guns for self-defense. The court majority on Monday agreed, reversing lower court rulings against a lawsuit that had challenged the state law.
"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," Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's majority opinion. "The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense."
He continued: "Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden."
The court ordered 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 said.
Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office, which is responsible for defending the state's laws, said it was reviewing the ruling and would comment later Tuesday.
Also studying the opinion were aides to Gov. Pat Quinn, favors strict gun control laws and proposed an assault weapons ban earlier this year that lawmakers defeated. Quinn has vowed to again bring legislation that would prohibit the sale or possession of semi-automatic rifles and other guns.
The leader of the Illinois State Rifle Association, Richard Pearson, praised the federal court's decision and said the state could have a new concealed carry law by early next month. A bill has already been written by Rep. Brandon Phelps of Harrisburg that includes provisions for background checks, field provisions and other issues, Pearson said.
"We are extremely pleased with the ruling," Pearson said. "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 lawmakers could consider it and pass it during a weeklong legislative session in January if they wanted to.
"Christmas came early for law-abiding gun owners," said Phelps, whose proposed legislation came within three votes of passing in 2011.
"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.' Today's the day."
"The court's pretty much said there's no restrictions," Phelps said.
The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by former corrections officer Michael Moore of Champaign, farmer Charles Hooks of Percy in southeastern Illinois and the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said state lawmakers have 180 days to write a new law that legalizes concealed carry.
Gun rights advocates long have argued that the prohibition against concealed weapons violates the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment and what they see as Americans' right to carry guns for self-defense. The court majority on Monday agreed, reversing lower court rulings against a lawsuit that had challenged the state law.
"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," Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's majority opinion. "The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense."
He continued: "Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden."
The court ordered 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 said.
Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office, which is responsible for defending the state's laws, said it was reviewing the ruling and would comment later Tuesday.
Also studying the opinion were aides to Gov. Pat Quinn, favors strict gun control laws and proposed an assault weapons ban earlier this year that lawmakers defeated. Quinn has vowed to again bring legislation that would prohibit the sale or possession of semi-automatic rifles and other guns.
The leader of the Illinois State Rifle Association, Richard Pearson, praised the federal court's decision and said the state could have a new concealed carry law by early next month. A bill has already been written by Rep. Brandon Phelps of Harrisburg that includes provisions for background checks, field provisions and other issues, Pearson said.
"We are extremely pleased with the ruling," Pearson said. "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 lawmakers could consider it and pass it during a weeklong legislative session in January if they wanted to.
"Christmas came early for law-abiding gun owners," said Phelps, whose proposed legislation came within three votes of passing in 2011.
"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.' Today's the day."
"The court's pretty much said there's no restrictions," Phelps said.
The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by former corrections officer Michael Moore of Champaign, farmer Charles Hooks of Percy in southeastern Illinois and the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation.
And why is there a need for a legal restriction at all? Â Just because you can create a legality doesn't mean you must create it. Â Carry them if you want. Â Don't carry them if you want. Â That is natural and general. Â That is all. Â Why is there need for a particular case? Â In federal or State buildings or land? Â Except on Tuesdays? Â
So I suppose that means Illinois will pass some type of Hawaii style "may issue" (almost never.) I'm not seeing more than a hollow victory at this point.Â
Ever see a picture of what a .60-.85 caliber musket ball does to a body at 400 plus yards? not a pretty sight. The extensive carnage of early 17th and 18th even up to late 19 century weapons could easily take a person out at 600 yards. the consitition 2nd amendment was to make sure if the need arises, you could be called upon to take action, any action against any foe. Today the foe has changed. But thank goodness no one uses a 60 caiber minie ball anymore. you can survive a 38 special, certainly if your a 30 + yards away. And today  we have home invasions, massive numbers of bank robberies, roadway snipers, colorado theatre murderers. etc. if you take away the ability to have weapons legally, only criminals will have weapons. Certainly the 433 (so far) people killed by criminals in Chicago this year is a huge number (52 in march alone).   Â
 @Ringmaster2000 " if you take away the ability to have weapons legally, only criminals will have weapons"
Â
The death-by-firearms statistics for countries in which guns are illegal to own would seem to contradict that assertion.
 @Sutekh  @Ringmaster2000Â
Those countries didn't have firearms to begin with. We do have firearms and it would be impossible to disarm everybody.
I don't understand the problem here. More people are assaulted and killed with other weapons besides guns every year. Someone gets stabbed? better ban all knives. Uh oh they got strangled? Lets ban all rope.
Â
The point of this is the government shouldn't be so involved in our lives. It is really simple. You let people have guns. If they are dumb enough to do a crime with said gun or any other weapon then you punish them. Stop all this plea bargain crap.Â
Â
If you make people not want the punishment then they wont do the crime. Sometimes archaic forms of punishment need to be used on a few to deter many. Combine that with proper mental health treatment for those that need it and you would see violent crime drop drastically.Â
Â
Unfortunately there is money to be made by the politicians which is why you see these stupid, ignorant fights.Â
 @seattleemt There is a bit of a conflict...
Â
"proper mental health treatment for those that need it"
and
"the government shouldn't be so involved in our lives"
Â
How are those needing mental health treatment going to be forced into it without another level of government involvement? A large number of them don't want it and don't believe they are the one with the problem.Â
Are you saying that there is a single other weapon type that kills and assaults more people than fire arms? Or all you saying that all other weaopns combined happen to kill and assault more people than guns?Â
Â
Your solution of using "archaic forms of punishment on a few to deter many" was tried for hundreds of years through out history, but it didn't stop people from violating the laws they were enforcing.Â
Â
Â
 @Justaguy Cars, doctors, the list goes on...
 @Justaguy Hands.
If the founding fathers had any idea what sort of guns were going to be manufactured 200 years into the future, they would have never lost their minds when writing the 2nd Amendment. When your frame of reference is a single shot musket, it's understandable why they did what they did, but the 2nd Amendment outlived it's usefulness years ago.
You ARE not an AMERICAN you can leave NOW.
 @JOE4x41 Not your place to make a statement like that.
 @Superman_1967 The 2nd Amendment was not just for personal safety.
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
I think we can plainly see Jefferson was correct.
 @Superman_1967 The second was written not for self defense but to be able to fight back against a tyrannical government. Sorry if that's too scary a concept for you, but it is the truth. The second will always be relevant and necessary to a free country, and must allow for current technology in arms to be usable by the populace. Why I am even bothering to argue with someone who clearly doesn't care about the truth, but only their own worldview, is another question. If you don't like guns, fine....you don't have to have one. But you have no right to tell anybody else they cannot exercise their explicit right to be armed.Â
Â
âThe constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent, or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.â - Thomas Jefferson
 @dg54321  @Superman_1967 dg4321 wrote: "The second was written not for self defense but to be able to fight back against a tyrannical government."
Â
The "defense of a free state," the wording from the Second Amendment, is self-evidently not about defending oneself against a tyrannical government, but to PROTECT one's country from military attack.
Â
For Pete's sake, how can you and the other gun enthusiasts spend so much time obsessing about the Second Amendment and yet have NO IDEA what it actually means?
 @Sutekh  @dg54321  @Superman_1967 Defense of a free state could mean ANY threat be it a tyrannical government or an a military attack from another country or a rebel/militia faction out to start another civil war.Â
 @dg54321  @Sutekh  @Superman_1967 "Or are you smarter than the Supreme Court AND the founding fathers?"
You mean the same Supreme Court AND founding fathers who allowed slavery to exist in this country for 76 years - until an armed rebellion was put down with 4+ years of unmitigated violence?
 @Sutekh  @Superman_1967 People far smarter than you and I have analyzed the 2nd Amendment's wording and found that it IS an individual, not a communal right. Or are you smarter than the Supreme Court AND the founding fathers? I guess you were there when they signed it to know what it means, and even given the words they wrote down on paper for all to study in today's day and age stating specifically that the people should always be armed to defend freedom, you know better than they. How delusional and arrogant to boot.
@dg54321 @Superman_1967 "Fight back against a tyrannical government", it's not a scary concept, it's downright preposterous and you should be embarrassed for writing such nonsense. First of all, the government has automatic weapons, tanks, F-18's, and nuclear weapons. A bunch of middle aged, overweight paranoid kooks with rifles and hand guns stand ZERO chance in your "fight against a tyrannical government". They would squash you like a bug. So as a practical matter, the phrase "fight against a tyrannical government" has no relevance whatsoever in today's America.
 @Superman_1967  @dg54321  @Superman_1967 Sumerman, you seem to neglect this context - *if* someone in the upper echelons decided that tyranny were the rule of the day, they'd still have to get the lower ranks to accept they also were to be tyrannical.  You mention bombs and tanks - how many of the military would accept bombing Hometown, USA? Â
Â
Tyranny comes in the form of your local elected officials and sundry city/county/State employees in the middle of the night, battering down your door for daring to exchange raw milk with another consenting person. Â It won't come from the President making speeches in some far off room, all smiles and lies. Â
Â
Relevance is contextual, not subjective.
 @Superman_1967  @dg54321  @Superman_1967 Case in point. Stick your head in the sand and go "la la la la" because you can do nothing to change reality. And the reality is, gun ownership is ballooning. We have won against people like you who would leave us to the mercy of the thieves, rapists and murderers because of your irrational fear of an inanimate object. Next goal, repeal full auto bans in WA and elsewhere. If the government can have full auto, we need it too. I'll be doing some grassroots campaigning while you ride out your aneurysm.
You are the kook. Do you know why you have the 1st addmendment? Becaue of the 2nd.
@dg54321 @Superman_1967 You are a deranged individual. A kook, pure and simple. Your only hope for the future is to go and dig a cave in the mountains and live in bunkers for the rest of your life. This is your future, start living it!!
I'm sorry did you just compare the Syrian military to the United States armed forces? Now that is funny
Â
Let's not forget that the rebels in Syria aren't winning the battles they win because of the guns that they own. They are winning because of the forgien support they are receiving, that is a huge difference.
 @Superman_1967  @dg54321  @Superman_1967 Your comments only confirm your lack of capacity for reasonable discourse, and your lack of understanding of the reality of how a civil war would really go down. The reality is, the 2nd Amendment is here to stay. Rights keep getting expanded to match the "shall not be infringed" wording daily. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable in a country like Canada, where the citizens are well controlled subjects, instead of free citizens, because our right to own guns is not going anywhere, and more and more of your fellow citizens will be carrying as the world gets worse.
  @Superman_1967 I don't think you understand that the military(army, navy, air force) can not  deployed against it own citizens on their own land 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. They are also sworn to protect and defend the constitution against threats at home and abroad.  Wonder why they put that at home thing in their? Unless it was understood that our own government is a threat to our constitution.
 @Superman_1967  @dg54321 I disagree. Look at countries in the middle east or asia, they often have tyrannical governments and armed militia groups occasionally fight said governments, occasionally with success. Granted the U.S. Military is a mighty one (I know, I served in it) and would crush most opponents. Looking at how difficult of a time they have had dealing with insurgent militia groups on the middle east one could make an argument that any well armed militia would do well enough to make the government thing twice about entering a fight. That is the exact purpose of the 2nd amendment. To give the government pause before trampling on its citizens.Â
 @Superman_1967  @dg54321  @Superman_1967 A bunch of middle age overweight paranoid kooks with rifles and hand guns don't stand a change, but add in the 18-25, 25-35, and 35 to 45 people like myself, and you have quiet a force. We have already shown that the US military SUCKS at fighting gorilla warfare (as any other military force). If you control an army, but every person under your rule has to be considered an enemy, then what kind of rule do you have?
 @Superman_1967  @dg54321  @Superman_1967 have you been looking at what syria is doing? they are fighting against jets, helo's and tanks. they are doing a damn fine job of it too.
 @Superman_1967 Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
Â
Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
Â
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Â
I notice there is nothing in any of these quotes that speaks of muskets or how deadly these arms were......
@dg54321 @Superman_1967 Well said!
Excellent decision! Anyone that can pass the background check should be able to carry. Don't like it, move to another country! Â
 @Powderhound I agree, but I also think there should be a rigorous "safety" test that you must pass, both written and physical.  You must pass this test every year if you want to CCW. The cost of the test should be no more than $50/year.
 @Stock Woodie Really? People are put in more danger by some idiot getting behind the wheel of the car. Should we make it that much of a process each year to maintain a drivers license?
Move to Canada then they have it.
 @Gadsden  @Stock Woodie Actually I would like to see ALL drivers licensing in the USA be a point based system. Those that drive bad earn more points and have to take more classes, pay more tickets, and eventually loose the privilege.Â
 @Stock Woodie  @Powderhound And who then decides what passes and what does not the same people that want to out law guns to begin with?  The whole will not be infringed is what people miss.  If  a granny wants a gun to protect herself since her husband passed who is the government to say you need to pass a test.
 @Stock Woodie The also had a poll tax and literacy tests for people at the polls not to long ago.  This was to stop people from voting who were not deemed and "fit" to vote.  Sound like you are asking for something similar.  The government gets to decide if you get a gun and some have already shown that they do not want us to with these laws.  That is even more reason for everyone who wants and can get one to do so.
If I lived in Chicago with 114 gangs and a combined membership of over 100,000, I would be very happy about this decision.
 @al_wa Seriously; anyone in doubt of this...Google local Chicago news sites and look at the incredible numbers of violent crimes. Parts of that place make White Center feel like a police station.
Â
Because only law abiding people carry guns in Chicago. No gun violence there.
 @BocaBob The most restrictive states have some of the worse gun violence.
It will be interesting to see the factual crime statistics from Illinois after a few years.
First of all it's not Gun Rights, it's Civil Rights via 2nd Amendment. Don't support Civil Rights, take it up with your Congressman/women and change the Constitution! Stating "Gun Rights" is like stating, News Paper rights - Freedom of Press or FaceBook rights - Freedom of Speech.
 @gastoys Rights are not granted by government upon the People.  The Bill of Rights does not grant anything to the People.  These amendments deny the government actions that contradict them, and more so require the government to protect them for the rulers of the country; the People rule in their various ways.The People decide what they will codify of all the rights inherent by birth (protection of self, etc etc).  It just so happens that the right of protection and denial of government was codified as "gun rights" in this particular amendment, but that is not to say it is granted to us by said codification.  It was always ours.
Sure, this is all we need......a bunch of paranoid individuals packing heat. This will do nothing to decrease crime, but WILL increase firearms deaths due to accidents and non-justifiable homicide. Gee, aren't guns wonderful? All we need is more of them.
 @Superman_1967 I have MANY guns, and not ONE of them has killed anyone. After reading your wisdom, I think I'll take them back....and exchange them for ones that AREN'T defective. :)
 @Superman_1967 So, studies of many cities who have done away with gun laws and have then saw a dramatic drop in crime are not a statistic?
I hope nobody breaks into your house and hurts you. Cause you can't defend yourself. Or if the bad guy wants to jack your car, your dead or walking.......
 @Superman_1967 I've owned firearms for nearly 20 years. I served in the military (pre-current conflicts so I've never seen combat). I've been around people who owned firearms my entire life. I have a CCW issued by our state. I do carry a firearm on me about 40% of the time. I'm not paranoid. I'm not a criminal. I'm not careless with firearms. I AM a normal firearm owner. Sure there are nut jobs out there, but most of us are perfectly normal, well adjusted human beings. You'd probably like me if you met me and you'd never know I was carrying a firearm. Be careful when labeling/judging other with such a broad brush.
 @Superman_1967 If you were going to commit a crime would you do it in a place that banned guns, or a place that encouraged legal ownership?
 @Superman_1967 Wrong.
 @Superman_1967 Superman, you are ignorant, studies have show time after time that violent crimes decrease when law abiding citizens carry guns, fact the year after D.C. banned guns the murder rate went up 143%. I hate ignorant liberals like you who spout their lies without having a clue what they are talking.
If the murder rates rose 143% when DC had the gun ban and then dropped 25% when the gun ban was lifted, doesn't that imply that murder rates were still up 118% even though guns were allowed?
Â
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/learning-from-the-dc-handgun-ban/
Â
I question the 143% increase rates but I also doubt that gun bans have any positive impact to crime rates. What has the most impact to crime rates is poverty and education levels.
Â
US citizens have the right to carry and therefore they should if they want to., but the vast majority of gun owners will never fire their weapon in self defense that much is a fact.
@Superman_1967 How do people survive working at Gun Stores, Range, Gun Shows and or ever live to see the outside of a Police Station and or Military Base?
 @Superman_1967 Australia banned guns to reduce crime, and since doing so has seen an increase in crime rise by 42.2%
 @Superman_1967 You should really study the facts before spouting off the same old tired anti-gun rhetoric that has already been proven to be false. Allowing law abiding citizens to own guns and carry them concealed reduces crime. Maybe we'll start to see a drop in Chicago violence finally. We've already seen drops in violent crimes in the rest of the US, that's with more guns and more gun owners...