December 11, 2012
Federal 7th Circuit Rules Illinois' Ban on Conceal Carry Wrong and Unconstitutional
Alright. The celebrations are over, the hollaring is done, and the beer has gone stale. It's time to get back to work.
The US Federal 7th Circuit Court has ruled in favor of the United States Constitution and lawful gun owners nationwide. The court struck down Illinois' (Chicago's) ban on conceal carry, calling it wrong and unconstitutional. The story has taken this area by storm- there are multiple articles out there explaining the 2-1 decision. The TL;DR verdict by the court was that there was "nothing special" about reduced crime (non-existant) in Illinois for them to take self-protection rights away. The court ruled:
"The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution allows for the bearing of arms outside of the home by law abiding citizens".
Here is what is going to happen from here-on-in.
1) The Illinois State Rifle Association and the National Rifle Association will work with lawmakers in Springfield to construct a clean conceal carry bill. The court ordered that reasonable restrictions exist, such as ones that exist for our neighbors who allow conceal carry. Reasonable restrictions include:
1) You can't carry a gun into a school, passed a security checkpoint at an airport, into a library, sports arena, any government facility or daycare. Stuff like that.
2) Reasonable registration fees in "shall issue fashion" to qualified applicants
3) Stringent background checks, barring wife/husband beaters, convicted violent felons or persons convicted of robbery.
4) Reciprocity with neighbors and fellow states in the country.
Those are REASONABLE and are the least restrictive options available, and follow similar models to our neighbors. You must have a CCWP permit to carry a gun, and I would take it a step further and require people to pass a state mandated safety course so people who carry know what the hell they are doing. If people will be carrying CCWP, I know at least ONE idiot will carry a gun not knowing how to use it. That is not a good idea, for him, her or anyone.
2) Springfield is MANDATED to provide RELIEF to affected gun owners within 180 days by producing concealed carry legislation that does not infringe on the 2nd Amendment and its text, which give the right to carry outside of the home, non-infringed. Restrictions above, that I outlined as reasonable, do not stop someone from applying and ultimately carrying their legal weapon.
Should the timer at the top of the page expire, the 7th Circuit will override the ban immediately, and conceal carry will be legal in Illinois, unrestricted. The timer is set to count down to June 9th, 2013.
3) The Madigan family, who work to protect Chicago's interests in the courts, as well as legislators from Chicago are attempting to piggy back the mandated legislation by throwing in "may issue" clauses, "good and substantial reason" clauses, or high fees that deter people from carrying. It was rumored that Quinn and Chicago legislators may attempt to piggy back ANOTHER assault weapons ban onto the bill.
The ISRA and NRA have warned that there will be no negotiation for 2nd Amendment rights; No semi-automatic ban in exchange for the right to carry.
4) Madigan, Quinn and gang are still considering appealing the case to the United States Supreme Court. In my opinion, they are very unlikely to get the case heard, as the ruling by the 7th circuit was clear cut, rational and non-controversial. If the SCOTUS agrees with the ruling or does not care to pick it up, the 7th Circuit decision will stand.
5) Lawmakers are MANDATED to provide a conceal carry bill. They are being FORCED to comply to the court's order, or the result will be unrestricted conceal carry in Illinois.
5) This case, if it stands will have massive reverberations throughout the country. The court ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to bear arms outside of the home, and this will set a precedent for other court battles in New York, Maryland, California, New Jersey, etc. The "good and substantial reason" clause will be under HEAVY FIRE, since the 7th circuit ruled in favor of carry outside of the home, COMPELLED by the next highest court in the judicial system, the SCOTUS.
We will see how they attempt to eff with the legislation, but I firmly believe Chicago's hands are tied behind their backs. This won't stop them from trying to loosen the knot, though.
1) The SCOTUS may agree to hear the case. The court will then rule for or against the ban on conceal carry in Illinois. In a 5-4 decision in 2010, the SCOTUS affirmed that the 2nd Amendment meant citizens could own arms and bear them in the home. They did not elaborate if bearing arms extended past the front door. The 7th Circuit has confirmed that mystery by ruling "yes".
If SCOTUS upholds the argument by Illinois and Chicago, the ban on conceal carry will stand, and could damage efforts in the may issue states against the "good and substantial reason" clause.
I cannot envision SCOTUS picking up the case, as the ruling was clear from the 7th Circuit. Chicago had no evidence that the ban was effective or increasing public safety. It was demonstrated that it is HURTING the safety of the public. I cannot see why SCOTUS would rule against that.
2) The SCOTUS may agree to hear the case, and rule in favor to throw the ban out the window. If this happens, the next highest court would confirm that the 2nd Amendment means bearing arms outside of the home for self protection. This would have a slightly more profound impact on court cases in New York, Maryland, New Jersey and California, who make it nearly impossible to get a CCWP permit using the "good and substantial reason" clause or red tape/high fees. With the clause mentioned a moment ago, if you cite "my 2nd Amendment rights", you will be denied.