Posted on 12/11/2012 10:40:13 AM PST by aimhigh
CHICAGO — A federal appeals court has struck down a ban on carrying concealed weapons in Illinois — the only state where carrying concealed weapons is entirely illegal.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals announced Tuesday that state lawmakers have 180 days to write a new law that legalizes concealed carry.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailyillini.com ...
Another article:
http://www.twincities.com/allheadlines/ci_22168932/court-strikes-down-illinois-concealed-carry-law
It will still be politically manipulated as everything in Illllllinois is in any governmental system.
They will model their concealed-carry statute on New York City’s rules. Don’t expect “shall issue” CCW to come from this.
A couple of wins today may still be a dead cat bounce but I’ll take it.
No worries. Count Obama and the UN will take care of this pesky gun problem once and for all.
This means I can wear my shoulder holster after all these years.
The anti-gun blue cities do not give up without a fight.
Woohoo!
Now is the time to take on California’s screwy system that makes issuance of CCW permits subject to the political whim of the sheriff a violation of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. The State can then be forced to come up with a standard that meets Constitutional muster for strict scrutiny as regards “the right to keep and bear arms.”
I certainly do. I see no indication in Heller or McDonald which would allow the government to decide whether any individual had a good reason to bear arms. Such individuals have a RIGHT to bear arms and need provide no reason.
Illinois may attempt to create widespread "sensitive places" and they may attempt to create classes of people who can't get a permit. These issues will have to be litigated again, perhaps, but the vast majority of people are going to get permits.
I hope when they fail to follow the prescribed remidy, in 180 days, that they are found in contempt.
One step at a time. Next step is challenging "may issue".
Law abiding citizens should not need a license to carry!!! Period!
Wow.
I was betting the other way.
You weren't before?
Only at dinner parties.
Interesting excerpts:
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.
Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower.
To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald. It is not a property right—a right to kill a houseguest who in a fit of aesthetic fury tries to slash your copy of Norman Rockwell’s painting Santa with Elves. That is not self-defense, and this case like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense.
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.
A person who carries a gun in public but is not well trained in the use of firearms is a menace to himself and others.
What kind of places do you go to dinner?
It will probably have to face the Supremes next.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.