Court ruling on Ill. gun ban sets stage for fight

CHICAGO (AP) — Backers of Illinois' ban on concealed weapons vowed Wednesday to fight for continued controls on gun possession, a day after a federal appeals court struck down the nation's last such prohibition as unconstitutional and ordered the state to craft a law allowing it.
Chicago aldermen joined gun control advocates in urging state Attorney General Lisa Madigan to appeal the ruling from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Gov. Pat Quinn and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said they would work with legislators to come up with a new law that would be sure to protect the public.
"I think it's important that we stress that public safety comes first," said Quinn, an ardent supporter of gun control, adding that people with a history of mental illness who are involved in domestic violence should not be able to carry weapons.
"I think that's where the people of Illinois are on this issue and anything having to do with guns and assault weapons and things like that. We cannot have those sorts of people eligible to carry loaded weapons on their person in public places, whether it be malls or churches or schools."
Quinn also said he will push for a ban on military-style assault weapons.
The ban's defenders said they expect a battle in the Legislature over the next six months as the state seeks to comply with the court order to craft a new law within 180 days. They noted that a number of states that allow concealed carry — such as Wisconsin, which approved it last year — still restrict where citizens can carry weapons.
"I expect a battle," said House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, a longtime gun control advocate. "The proponents of concealed carry have not yet carried the day."
Gun rights advocates, who long have argued that the Illinois ban violates the Second Amendment, celebrated the ruling as a major victory in their campaign to make Illinois the center of the national debate over gun control after Wisconsin tossed out its ban on concealed carry last year.
The gun rights backers interpreted the 2-1 appellate court ruling as a mandate instructing lawmakers to pass a bill allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons in public with few if any restrictions. Todd Vandermyde, a National Rifle Association lobbyist, said gun control advocates could forget any limits such as partial bans near places such as day care centers and schools.
Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said lawmakers could quickly pass an existing concealed-carry bill when they reconvene the first week of January. The bill, he said, "contains all the things — background checks, classroom time — that all the parties wanted, so it's ready to go," but he said the sponsors may not need to include all those provisions this time around.
"We bent over backwards before and tried to accommodate everybody, and they just threw it in the garbage," Pearson said. "Maybe we won't be so accommodating now."
As Chicago grapples with a spike in its murders and shootings this year, several members of the City Council said Wednesday they hope Madigan will appeal the ruling. However, that may be a long shot given the Supreme Court's recent rulings, which includes striking down Chicago's handgun ban. Madigan's office said she was reviewing the decision.
The aldermen also noted that the city has the authority to ban or restrict concealed weapons on its own. But Alderman Howard Brookins disagreed with that approach, saying the court's decision means law-abiding citizens "who jump through the hoops" to secure the proper gun permits will be able to better protect themselves.
Judge Richard Posner wrote in the majority appellate opinion that Illinois doesn't have "some unique characteristic of criminal activity" that provides an excuse for not joining the rest of the nation when it comes to concealed weapons.
But the majority included the 180-day stay of its ruling 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," Posner wrote. The fight in the Legislature would be over what constitutes "reasonable limitations."
Gun control advocates say that other states have a range of criteria for allowing concealed carry. Four states — Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming — require no permit for concealed carry.
By contrast, a number of other states — including New York and California — give law enforcement officials discretion in issuing permits and require applicants to demonstrate good cause for carrying, according to Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
In Illinois, the existing legislative proposal requires specific training for applicants, but the sponsors could choose to leave that out, Pearson said. Another possibility, he said, is requiring training from any NRA instructor, as some states require. "You get certified and you're out the door," he said.
There also is likely to be debate over where concealed weapons can be carried. For example, Wisconsin decided that gun permit holders cannot carry weapons in schools, police stations or courtrooms but can carry weapons into taverns if they aren't drinking alcohol. Private property owners can ban weapons in their buildings if they see fit.
Some gun control advocates believe their best chance is with the Supreme Court, despite recent rulings — including one overturning Chicago's handgun ban — that found citizens have a Second Amendment right to have a gun for self-defense in their homes.
Flynn Currie said she is encouraged by the court's silence on the right to carry concealed weapons and wants Madigan to appeal the ruling.
The Supreme Court's rulings on the Second Amendment were "very limited, saying the home is your castle, and it didn't apply to other places," she said. "For that reason, it's worth checking on that question."
Chicago aldermen joined gun control advocates in urging state Attorney General Lisa Madigan to appeal the ruling from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Gov. Pat Quinn and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said they would work with legislators to come up with a new law that would be sure to protect the public.
"I think it's important that we stress that public safety comes first," said Quinn, an ardent supporter of gun control, adding that people with a history of mental illness who are involved in domestic violence should not be able to carry weapons.
"I think that's where the people of Illinois are on this issue and anything having to do with guns and assault weapons and things like that. We cannot have those sorts of people eligible to carry loaded weapons on their person in public places, whether it be malls or churches or schools."
Quinn also said he will push for a ban on military-style assault weapons.
The ban's defenders said they expect a battle in the Legislature over the next six months as the state seeks to comply with the court order to craft a new law within 180 days. They noted that a number of states that allow concealed carry — such as Wisconsin, which approved it last year — still restrict where citizens can carry weapons.
"I expect a battle," said House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, a longtime gun control advocate. "The proponents of concealed carry have not yet carried the day."
Gun rights advocates, who long have argued that the Illinois ban violates the Second Amendment, celebrated the ruling as a major victory in their campaign to make Illinois the center of the national debate over gun control after Wisconsin tossed out its ban on concealed carry last year.
The gun rights backers interpreted the 2-1 appellate court ruling as a mandate instructing lawmakers to pass a bill allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons in public with few if any restrictions. Todd Vandermyde, a National Rifle Association lobbyist, said gun control advocates could forget any limits such as partial bans near places such as day care centers and schools.
Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said lawmakers could quickly pass an existing concealed-carry bill when they reconvene the first week of January. The bill, he said, "contains all the things — background checks, classroom time — that all the parties wanted, so it's ready to go," but he said the sponsors may not need to include all those provisions this time around.
"We bent over backwards before and tried to accommodate everybody, and they just threw it in the garbage," Pearson said. "Maybe we won't be so accommodating now."
As Chicago grapples with a spike in its murders and shootings this year, several members of the City Council said Wednesday they hope Madigan will appeal the ruling. However, that may be a long shot given the Supreme Court's recent rulings, which includes striking down Chicago's handgun ban. Madigan's office said she was reviewing the decision.
The aldermen also noted that the city has the authority to ban or restrict concealed weapons on its own. But Alderman Howard Brookins disagreed with that approach, saying the court's decision means law-abiding citizens "who jump through the hoops" to secure the proper gun permits will be able to better protect themselves.
Judge Richard Posner wrote in the majority appellate opinion that Illinois doesn't have "some unique characteristic of criminal activity" that provides an excuse for not joining the rest of the nation when it comes to concealed weapons.
But the majority included the 180-day stay of its ruling 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," Posner wrote. The fight in the Legislature would be over what constitutes "reasonable limitations."
Gun control advocates say that other states have a range of criteria for allowing concealed carry. Four states — Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming — require no permit for concealed carry.
By contrast, a number of other states — including New York and California — give law enforcement officials discretion in issuing permits and require applicants to demonstrate good cause for carrying, according to Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
In Illinois, the existing legislative proposal requires specific training for applicants, but the sponsors could choose to leave that out, Pearson said. Another possibility, he said, is requiring training from any NRA instructor, as some states require. "You get certified and you're out the door," he said.
There also is likely to be debate over where concealed weapons can be carried. For example, Wisconsin decided that gun permit holders cannot carry weapons in schools, police stations or courtrooms but can carry weapons into taverns if they aren't drinking alcohol. Private property owners can ban weapons in their buildings if they see fit.
Some gun control advocates believe their best chance is with the Supreme Court, despite recent rulings — including one overturning Chicago's handgun ban — that found citizens have a Second Amendment right to have a gun for self-defense in their homes.
Flynn Currie said she is encouraged by the court's silence on the right to carry concealed weapons and wants Madigan to appeal the ruling.
The Supreme Court's rulings on the Second Amendment were "very limited, saying the home is your castle, and it didn't apply to other places," she said. "For that reason, it's worth checking on that question."
By the way, the mall management has declared it a "gun free zone" which means you can't take a gun into the mall.
Trust them. The no-guns people have it under control.
Â
It has, of course, never stopped me. I checked with my CHL instructor and he said that putting a sign on a door is meaningless. If you have a weapon, the mall security or property owner can ask you to leave. At that point, if you don't, you're trespassing and the police won't go easy on you.Â
Â
Â
 @Playanekes I have to agree with you on that one.. If I put a sign on my door that "This house is a burglar free zone" doesn't insure my safety. Good post.
Â
What many people do not understand is that criminals usually do not manufacture their own guns, but steal them from law-abiding folks. Would preventing general public to own guns help to keep guns away from criminals? Maybe some, but it will sure tip the scale of gun ownership to criminals. Would making guns illegal reduce the number of gun-related deaths? Not sure, because it will empower criminals who will continue to own guns. Much more effective way to reduce gun-related or any other premature deaths is to confine people to a bubble, force them to eat vitamins and outlaw desserts. Mandate exercise and outlaw TV. Longevity at any cost?
Shall we. Control or be controled.
"As Chicago grapples with a spike in its murders and shootings this year..."
Â
Gun control laws only apply to honest citizens. The murdering gang bangers think nothing about laws. The antigunners are really assaulting the rights of honest hard working citizens. It has nothing to do with the murder rate in Illinois.
Â
What the pro gun folks should do it pass a law that requires police to keep people safe or be held responsible financially. This would fix the problem real fast since police HARDLY EVER prevent murders. They would be inundated with lawsuits and government would quickly give in and allow folks to carry a gun.
Â
Â
Gun control people are against freedom/
I'm really curious if anyone in the crowd against right to carry has seen the actual statistics regarding gun crime?
Â
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm
Â
A direct excerpt...Â
Â
"According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
Â
a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%"
Â
So, this law would (and this is being generous) only protect us from 14% of the gun carrying criminals. The other 80% wouldn't likely obey such laws, since their reported source for the weapon makes it illegal for them to be in possession in the first place.
Â
And yet, it would make it illegal for 100% of the law abiding citizens to carry guns for self protection?Â
Â
...and this is a 'good' law that they're going to fight for?
Â
Wow.... I mean, just.... Wow.Â
 @MarkKpic Except that it won't even protect us from that 14%, economics dictates they will simply move to the next available source, ie. an illegal source.
One can only hope that the gun control folks stay in Chicago. After all, their lives are so well protected by gun control laws! LOL
Hey, I like that one sign - with the handgun inside the square and the diagonal line across it and "Dial 911 and Pray"... Â wonder if that's on a bumper sticker somewhere... Â :-)
Remember people... The second amendment is there for you to protect yourself from a fascist police state government that would try to take away your rights to protect yourself (a natural right).
"Rahm Emanuel said they would work with legislators to come up with a new law that would be sure to protect the public." Huh. He didn't seem to have a problem with running guns to Mexican cartels, who later used those same guns to murder people.
 @randomdude ~  Rahm Emanuel has a very "selective memory"...