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 them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality 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.
REVERSED AND REMANDED, WITH DIRECTIONS; BUT MANDATE STAYED FOR 180 DAYS.
IL is the only state that doesn’t have some form of legal CCW. Only LE’s and peace officers (like Chicago councilmen) can carry. IIRC, there is also a guard card for security. But no civilian CCW.
720 ILCS 5/24-1
Sec. 24-1. Unlawful Use of Weapons.
(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:
…
(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person’s permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (4) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the following conditions:
The 6 month delay is under the auspices of giving our “elected representatives”, I refuse to call them officials as that would indicate competence, time to write a law. You know they will use every second and dirty trick to try and weasel out of it but it looks like the debate at least is over. Finally.
Besides the aforementioned shall vs may issue, Hawaii isn’t in the same district as Illinois, so it doesn’t apply to Hawaii.
But a few pro-2A groups are currently at the 9th Circuit trying to get a ruling that “may issue” is unconstitutional. The one from Hawaii is http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/
Without appealing to the Supreme Court, Illinois is now ordered to allow concealed carry or craft a law in keeping with the ruling within 180 days. I doubt if the state will appeal, since it would be an uphill climb with the other 49 having some form of CCW.
I live in Illinois … I’m thinking the dems who shot down the more restrictive CCW bill earlier this years wish they’d have voted to pass it.
As I understand it there’s a majority for shall issue but Madigan won’t schedule a vote. The shall issue group now gets their way or sits on their hands for constitutional carry.
It is not Eric Holder, but Governor Pat Quinn and House Speaker Mike Madigan. These are the guys that will do, and have done, everything they can to keep concealed carry out of Illinois.
Perhaps this court decision will turn the tide here, but this is Illinois. (See my tag line below)
I am not getting too excited yet. Who knows what kind of bs ccw law they come up with and how hard it will be for a citizen to get a permit. This is still Illinois…
At this point, the Court of Appeals has decided the issue, and the state MUST allow concealed carry in a form consistent with the court’s ruling. The state has 180 days to draft legislation before the order is remanded back to the lower court to implement.