In the state of New York, one must show good and substantial reason in order to conceal carry a weapon. This means your life must be in danger, you must be a politician, celebrity, a person of wealth or a bodyguard.
If one were to apply and cite their 2nd Amendment rights, they will be denied a permit. SCOTUS, the Supreme Court has refused to hear a court case in New York challenging the good and substantial reason clause. This means that the previous court who ruled has the final say on the decision, meaning that New York's ban on concealed carry (in practice) is constitutional.
Those of us who are gun owners know that it isn't. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
There are many other challenges pending to SCOTUS. The problem is is that it takes months, even years to hear back from them. There are many ways to interpret what SCOTUS is doing. There are facts to go along with the interpretations, too.
1) There are more court cases that SCOTUS could take.
2) There are many opportunities that can be created and appealed to SCOTUS. This could take years, even up to a decade.
Here are some of the interpretations floating around. Then we will get to how this will embolden Chicago.
[Weak] Interpretation #1: SCOTUS is simply waiting for a broader case to rule on.
I think this argument is very weak. Kachalsky v. Cacace argues that the discretionary dispensation of permits is unconstitutional (may-issue). This is a fairly concrete accusation, I do not see how it is open to broader analysis.
[Weak] Interpretation #2: SCOTUS wants to avoid looking bad after Newtown.
There is no evidence to suggest SCOTUS wants to be put in a bad light after the Newtown tragedy. The issue in question, Kachalsky v. Cacace has nothing to do with the mentally ill.
[Moderately Strong] Interpretation #3: Lisa Madigan may decide it is futile to appeal to SCOTUS in the court case Moore v. Madigan.
This is a fairly strong assertion on a separate court case. The 7th Circuit in Chicago ruled that the ban on conceal carry in the state of Illinois is unconstitutional, and gave the state 180 days to rewrite their law. Chicago takes this as the following "they want us to write a new law, but we were not ordered to do so, and we won't". This would mean two things on Chicago's part- #1 is that they would want conceal carry, which flies in the face of their agenda, and #2 is that they would rather drag the issue out in court to extend their control. This isn't a fully strong argument for one reason: it cannot be doubted that Chicago has an infinite level of stupidity. They may still try an appeal to SCOTUS. If SCOTUS accepts, then the UUW law comes back into existence until they rule.
1) Da hell man? What is going on here?
A: I am trying to digest this myself. It's very complicated to understand all of what is going on, but it helps to have a couple of facts.
1) The 7th circuit ruled the UUW law unconstitutional, and offered them a chance to change the law over the course of 180 days. It was not a demand to change the law. If they take no action, the law will be decided for them.
2) Chicago has done nothing to change the law. This does not necessarily mean Chicago is becoming pro-gun. See next question.
2) Ok, why is Chicago not pressing for their own agenda?
A: Because their true agenda, a ban on carry has been knocked down. I am sure they have tried to find a way to illegally mask their agenda in innocuous tape, but if they haven't found out how to do that by now, they won't. This means, at best Chicago has to settle for may-issue and carbon copy New York state law.
3) Why haven't they passed that may-issue law then?
A: For two reasons. The first is the NRA-ILA. The second reason is because they keep going for the kingpin- their may issue with semi-automatic bans, magazine bans, and everything else that violates the 2nd amendment. I said SEMI-AUTOMATIC bans. That means pistols, rifles, shotguns. They have tried three or four times over the past year and have failed.
4) Why are they horsing around on the Madigan merry-go-round then?
A: This is the part that confuses me. Instead of setting forth the next best agenda, Madigan has decided to take his crew onto the Madigan Merry-Go-Round where nothing gets done at all. Not even anti-gun stuff, because they tried that and it got nowhere. It then comes down to what Chicago is thinking right this moment. Why would they want to run the clock out instead of get their agenda?
Their true agenda was knocked out of commission first. Any logical person would then see they would want second best in that case, which would be may-issue laws. One would think Madigan, the speaker in the house would want to perpetuate the may-issue bill as much as he can, but again he is going for the "Christmas Tree King Pin" as it has been called, the "holy grail" of gun control.
One could then argue that their greed for everything at this "great Emanuel opportunity" will cost them. One thing is for certain: Chicago doesn't like being told what to do. If they can't get their agenda passed (may-issue) because of gun rights efforts in the ILGA, then their only other option is to let the clock run out. Thinking about this logically, this is something that Chicago doesn't want to do, but it is the only way to keep people from telling them what to do. In fact, they have snubbed their noses at the ruling saying that anything ruled on by the 7th is non-binding to the states. Oh yes it is, because the state is a DEFENDANT in the case.
It makes zero sense to me to let the clock run out if I was Chicago. The ruling is against me, and I have to scramble to get it changed my way. Perhaps the Madigan circus is a personification of their panic. Perhaps they tried to get may-issue their way, but the legislation is stalling because of our efforts (pro-gun efforts). What else can you do, when the 7th ruled against you, your efforts in the legislature are stymied, and the clock is fast running out? You get on the merry-go-round and shout "SOMEONE THINK OF SOMETHING FAST!"
5) Then what's their only remaining option?
Their only option left is to let the clock run out. This would mean that Illinois' unlawful use of a weapon law is erased. Since there would be no law they can charge you with, anyone with a FOID card (foid is still in play) will be able to open or conceal carry a weapon anywhere not prohibited by federal law. This means no:
crowded areas such as protests
This would mean Chicago must QUICKLY figure out a way to restrict carry to a point where it is very punishing for the individual. It makes sense- they tried to pass HB2665 to further penalize gun owners carrying after June 9th for this reason; to intimidate them and threaten them with jail time.
6) But there's more to it, isn't there?
A: Correct. When the law is erased, all local homerule entities (towns greater than a population of 25,000 people) can make their own ordinances about carry. Good or bad. And those cases WILL end up in court and WILL cause massive headaches for the state when injunctions are filed for non-compliance.
At this point, now that HB2665 has been derailed (yay!)they don't have much of a choice. Until the Kachalsky case sounded off. If I were Chicago, I would be pushing like mad for a may-issue carry bill. The ultimate question, at the end of everything we've talked about, is:
"Will the downstate democrats stab the people in the back?"
People at IllinoisCarry.com seem to think no. I've contacted the NRA-ILA and we'll see if I get a response to that ultimate question.