Glock Talk

Glock Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   Gun-Control Issues (http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   BREAKING: 7th Court of Appeals orders concealed carry in Illinois (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1457116)

BudMan5 12-11-2012 10:22

BREAKING: 7th Court of Appeals orders concealed carry in Illinois
 
They have given the State legislature 180 days to come up with a law permitting concealed carry by residents:

Moore/Shepard v. Madigan

HOTEL SIERRA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

eb07 12-11-2012 10:43

Highlights I grabbed from reading....


Quote:

Both Heller and McDonald do say that “the need
for defense of self, family, and property is most acute”
in the home, id. at 3036 (emphasis added); 554 U.S. at
628, but that doesn’t mean it is not acute outside the home.
Heller repeatedly invokes a broader Second
Amendment right than the right to have a gun in
one’s home, as when it says that the amendment
“guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” 554 U.S. at 592.
Confrontations are not limited to the home.

Quote:

The Second Amendment states in its entirety that “a
well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (emphasis added).
The right to “bear” as distinct from the right to “keep”
arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of “bearing”
arms within one’s home would at all times have been
an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies
a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.
Quote:

Moreover, there is no reason to expect Illinois
to impose minimal permit restrictions on carriage
of guns outside the home, for obviously this is not a state
that has a strong pro-gun culture, unlike the
states that began allowing concealed carriage before Heller
and MacDonald enlarged the scope of Second Amendment
rights.
Quote:

A blanket prohibition on carrying gun in public
prevents a person from defending himself anywhere
except inside his home; and so substantial a curtailment
of the right of armed self-defense requires a
greater showing of justification than merely that the
public might benefit on balance from such a curtailment,
though there is no proof it would.


Quote:

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. 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. 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. 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 Supreme Court’s interpretation of
the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse
the decisions in the two cases before us and remand
Nos. 12-1269, 12-1788 21
them to their respective district courts for the entry
of dec la ra tions of unconst itut ional it y and
permanent injunctions. Nevertheless we order our mandate
stayed for 180 days 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.

janice6 12-11-2012 10:51

Congratulations guys and gals. I couldn't be happier for you.

You have another Constitutional right affirmed. (as it should be)

kirgi08 12-11-2012 10:57

:cool:

Mr Spock 12-11-2012 11:07

Wow. This answers the question of what is the LAST thing I expected to read today. Congrats, guys, and GOOD JOB to those of you who were fighting on behalf of this one.

Curious... This decision, based on the highlights posted in this thread, calls a blanket prohibition unconstitutional based on the concept of bearing arms. What will this mean for Chicago, in particular, and on a broader scale, NYC, New Jersey, etc???

Cambo 12-11-2012 11:21

Hey NJ Scumbag Democrats, YOU LOSE! This is coming to us next and you can't stop it! If it can happen in Illinois, it can happen anywhere.

BudMan5 12-11-2012 13:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighTechRedneck (Post 19723534)
Wow. This answers the question of what is the LAST thing I expected to read today. Congrats, guys, and GOOD JOB to those of you who were fighting on behalf of this one.

Curious... This decision, based on the highlights posted in this thread, calls a blanket prohibition unconstitutional based on the concept of bearing arms. What will this mean for Chicago, in particular, and on a broader scale, NYC, New Jersey, etc???

That's exactly why the Illinois Attorney General cannot appeal to the Supreme court.

If she did and then lost(as she would) then this decision would affect every State.

Win-win for Illinois and well crafted attack plan by the NRA and SAF

Jermzzzzzzz 12-11-2012 14:16

SHALL ISSUE PLEASE! Glad to see my NRA donations put to good use.

Sent from my DROIDX

MJB 12-11-2012 16:35

Great news! Now I just hope they can write a reasonable CCW law and not some crap like they have in Kalifornia.

flw 12-11-2012 17:30

I feel like a kid at Christmas again :cheerleader:

Now as long as they don't screw up the requirements and accept reciprocity from other surrounding states.

We'll know for sure in six months.

But for now I'm just savoring the moment. I thought it could never happen. The last State for CCW and no high capacity bans either.

Ruggles 12-11-2012 17:54

:) Scoreboard!

Mr Spock 12-11-2012 18:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by flw (Post 19724858)
I feel like a kid at Christmas again :cheerleader:

Now as long as they don't screw up the requirements and accept reciprocity from other surrounding states.

We'll know for sure in six months.

But for now I'm just savoring the moment. I thought it could never happen. The last State for CCW and no high capacity bans either.

The moment you get your permit, strap on a five seven with a 30 rd mag or maybe a G19 with a 33 rd mag. Just because you can. It'd be worth buying the gun, magazine, and ammo.

SJ 40 12-11-2012 18:23

It was apparent this would be the fall out from the Heller decision in all localities,just surprised it took this long. SJ 40

Gunnut 45/454 12-11-2012 18:41

Great news!!:supergrin: But and this is a big but! Does anyone think the Uber Liberals in IL are going to make it easy for you to get a permit to carry? Really? I bet now you can forget recipatory of any other states permit. Heck I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Rom say go **** yourself 7 th curcuit! Also wouldn't be a bit surprised if King Obamamoa/Holder didn't step in some how! Time will tell!:whistling:

BudMan5 12-11-2012 21:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunnut 45/454 (Post 19725146)
Great news!!:supergrin: But and this is a big but! Does anyone think the Uber Liberals in IL are going to make it easy for you to get a permit to carry? Really? I bet now you can forget recipatory of any other states permit. Heck I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Rom say go **** yourself 7 th curcuit! Also wouldn't be a bit surprised if King Obamamoa/Holder didn't step in some how! Time will tell!:whistling:

Read the Court Opinion and Order.

If they don't pass a fair concealed carry bill (we have enough votes in both the Senate and House to block a bad one) then constitutional carry kicks in State wide on June 9, 2013.

WinterWizard 12-12-2012 00:06

This is awesome. Hopefully my buddy in Chicago will be able to carry come late spring. However, as a Wisconsinite, I know not to celebrate until it's a reality. The scumbag politicians still have a few chances at a hail mary. Also being from Wisconsin, they're better be reciprocity. I hate driving through Chicago, let alone unarmed.

cowboywannabe 12-12-2012 00:18

Dont get too uppity, nj, hawaii, maryland and nyc have a ccw permit system.

Get ready for the glass ceiling.

Mr Spock 12-12-2012 06:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by BudMan5 (Post 19725691)
Read the Court Opinion and Order.

If they don't pass a fair concealed carry bill (we have enough votes in both the Senate and House to block a bad one) then constitutional carry kicks in State wide on June 9, 2013.

Then doesn't it make sense for that contingent in the house and senate to just block ANY bill regarding a CCW system until constitutional carry kicks in? It would seem that dragging their feet and voting no on anything would be the best response possible.

That is, unless they can get shall issue with preemption of local laws. :)

WarCry 12-12-2012 08:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighTechRedneck (Post 19726324)
Then doesn't it make sense for that contingent in the house and senate to just block ANY bill regarding a CCW system until constitutional carry kicks in? It would seem that dragging their feet and voting no on anything would be the best response possible.

That is, unless they can get shall issue with preemption of local laws. :)

Shall Issue with Preemption is actually already on the table, and very nearly passed 19 months ago. Due to the preemption, it has to have a super-majority to pass (71 votes) and the vote was called off with 65 "Yay" votes (and would have gotten 68). Since it was a few short, it was put on hold, but it's still waiting in the wings. (This is Illinois HB0148 if you care to read it all)

Jermzzzzzzz 12-12-2012 09:01

Gotta love the negative Nancys on this thread shooting down everyones hopes and dreams.

Sent from my DROIDX

Gunnut 45/454 12-12-2012 10:02

BudMan5
I missed that part! :whistling: Yep then block everything until you get Constitutional carry! That's the best thing you can have! Then you don't have to pay for training, permits and OC is allowed! I always thought it was funny IL didn't even follow there own State Constitution as far as guns!:rofl:

WarCry 12-12-2012 11:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunnut 45/454 (Post 19726913)
BudMan5
I missed that part! :whistling: Yep then block everything until you get Constitutional carry! That's the best thing you can have! Then you don't have to pay for training, permits and OC is allowed! I always thought it was funny IL didn't even follow there own State Constitution as far as guns!:rofl:

Actually, they do. The IL State Constitution says:
"SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The state does have the police power, and therefore the laws they passed are the "subject only to police power" that's mentioned. Very sad, but still within the rights as listed in the state constitution.

Gunnut 45/454 12-12-2012 17:18

"SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."



Ah no they didn't as you didn't have the right to carry! And the police power "Infringed on every other aspect of your right without any justification!

33rdglock17 12-12-2012 20:43

It will be amazing if we actually get shall issue. I know my local CLEO is all for CC though so even may issue will work for me but I'd feel bad for everybody else.

The local chicago news broadcasts are already talking about how this will flood the streets with guns and cause "wild west shootouts". They just fail to accept that it is a gang/drug culture problem, not a gun problem

Gunnut 45/454 12-13-2012 07:16

33rdglock17
Agreed I just can't see the Progressive libertards just rolling over and letting this slide -especially King Obamamoa! This is going to get very interesting!:whistling:


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:52.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.