Court strikes down Illinois concealed carry law
CHICAGO (AP) - In a big victory for gun rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a ban on carrying concealed weapons in Illinois - the only state where it had remained entirely illegal.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said state lawmakers have 180 days to write a new law that legalizes concealed carry.
Gun rights advocates long have argued that the prohibition against concealed weapons violates the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment and what they see as Americans' right to carry guns for self-defense. The court majority on Monday agreed, reversing lower court rulings against a lawsuit that had challenged the state law.
"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," Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's majority opinion. "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."
He continued: "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 court ordered its ruling stayed "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 said.
Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office, which is responsible for defending the state's laws, said it was reviewing the ruling and would comment later Tuesday.
Also studying the opinion were aides to Gov. Pat Quinn, favors strict gun control laws and proposed an assault weapons ban earlier this year that lawmakers defeated. Quinn has vowed to again bring legislation that would prohibit the sale or possession of semi-automatic rifles and other guns.
The leader of the Illinois State Rifle Association, Richard Pearson, praised the federal court's decision and said the state could have a new concealed carry law by early next month. A bill has already been written by Rep. Brandon Phelps of Harrisburg that includes provisions for background checks, field provisions and other issues, Pearson said.
"We are extremely pleased with the ruling," Pearson said. "Now that the court has ruled ... we will work as soon as possible with legislators to craft a concealed carry bill for the state of Illinois."
He said lawmakers could consider it and pass it during a weeklong legislative session in January if they wanted to.
"Christmas came early for law-abiding gun owners," said Phelps, whose proposed legislation came within three votes of passing in 2011.
"I said on the floor, 'A lot of people who voted against this, one of these days, you're going to wish you did, because of all the limitations and the safety precautions we put in this bill, because one of these days, the court's going to rule and you're not going to like the ruling.' Today's the day."
"The court's pretty much said there's no restrictions," Phelps said.
The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by former corrections officer Michael Moore of Champaign, farmer Charles Hooks of Percy in southeastern Illinois and the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said state lawmakers have 180 days to write a new law that legalizes concealed carry.
Gun rights advocates long have argued that the prohibition against concealed weapons violates the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment and what they see as Americans' right to carry guns for self-defense. The court majority on Monday agreed, reversing lower court rulings against a lawsuit that had challenged the state law.
"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," Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's majority opinion. "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."
He continued: "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 court ordered its ruling stayed "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 said.
Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office, which is responsible for defending the state's laws, said it was reviewing the ruling and would comment later Tuesday.
Also studying the opinion were aides to Gov. Pat Quinn, favors strict gun control laws and proposed an assault weapons ban earlier this year that lawmakers defeated. Quinn has vowed to again bring legislation that would prohibit the sale or possession of semi-automatic rifles and other guns.
The leader of the Illinois State Rifle Association, Richard Pearson, praised the federal court's decision and said the state could have a new concealed carry law by early next month. A bill has already been written by Rep. Brandon Phelps of Harrisburg that includes provisions for background checks, field provisions and other issues, Pearson said.
"We are extremely pleased with the ruling," Pearson said. "Now that the court has ruled ... we will work as soon as possible with legislators to craft a concealed carry bill for the state of Illinois."
He said lawmakers could consider it and pass it during a weeklong legislative session in January if they wanted to.
"Christmas came early for law-abiding gun owners," said Phelps, whose proposed legislation came within three votes of passing in 2011.
"I said on the floor, 'A lot of people who voted against this, one of these days, you're going to wish you did, because of all the limitations and the safety precautions we put in this bill, because one of these days, the court's going to rule and you're not going to like the ruling.' Today's the day."
"The court's pretty much said there's no restrictions," Phelps said.
The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by former corrections officer Michael Moore of Champaign, farmer Charles Hooks of Percy in southeastern Illinois and the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation.
My grandfather was an undertaker. He had three rules: Don't ride a motorcycle; don't drove a VW Bug; and don't have a gun in your house. In 40 years he buried no intruders killed with guns - it was nothing but suicides and family members.
Â
If you want to have a gun in your house, go ahead. But, when you want to start carrying it around in public (concealed or not), it becomes a public matter. I know it goes against current Constitutional doctrine, but I don't see how the Second Amendment gives you an unrestricted right to walk around with a gun. Doing so wasn't even allowed in the Wild West - you had to check your guns with the sheriff when you got to town. A society in which everyone feels compelled to stroll around packing heat is not a safe, or rational, society.
 @Max Quinn Actually no it is not a public matter. Laws are in  place allowing the carrying of firearms in public in Oregon. As for CHL holders. there are over 200,000 of us in the state and the number keeps rising on a daily basis. Do you know who is carrying concealed??? Probably not .  By nature a concealed weapon is concealed and private. That is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS who has a CHL or not.  Anyways like they always say" An Armed Society is a Polite society" . Considering that the highest rates for violent crimes are where  firearms are  banned ( Portland , Chicago, San Francisco, Detroit , Washington DC just to name a few.Â
What Illinois needs to realize is that States where gun permits are available, have lower crime rates. Â Vermont has no laws regarding guns at all. Â No permits are needed to carry concealed. Â Yet their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the USA. Â
Â
Considering the corruption in the Illinois government, I wouldn't be surprised if the politicians get to wet their beaks from the proceeds of thefts.Â
@Sweetpea Vermont's population is also the 2nd lowest in the USA and they also have among the lowest poverty rates in the US. So crime rates are difinitely influenced by those facts more than how many people are carrying guns. I carry a gun myself, but let's be realistic about why Vermont is the way it is.
I've got a simple question -- the article mentions concealed carry several times. Does that imply that open carry is legal? If so, would that be enough to satisfy the 2nd ammendment? I'm not sure I understand the constitutional need to conceal your weapons...
 @Ack Open carry is legal in Oregon but cities have the right to regulate if they are loaded or not. Oregon CHL laws have preemption built into them.
Â
That means ONLY the state can regulate who and where those with CHLs can go.
Â
 The cities and counties cannot regulate that. Place like Clackamas Town Center can post "no firearms" on thier doors but those are trespassing signs not firearms signs.
Â
They can do this because malls are technically private property. Â
Â
But then again unless all these places have metal detectors  , ther eis no way to see who is carrying and who is not. A concealed firearm never is an issue as it is concealed.
Â
@Ack amendment, not ammendment, but your question is good. I carry concealed because I don't want to promote a wild-west "my gun is bigger than yours" mentality or make people uncomfortable. I simply prefer a safe, polite society where a potential bad guy has no idea who's armed and who isn't.
 @Playanekes  @Ack ~ Well said..!  I think the sight of someone walking down the street with a handgun in a holster on their hip would probably be an unnerving sight to some people, even if said person was just walking along and minding their own business.  I, too, would rather keep my S&W out of sight unless and until I actually need it.  (Besides, it rains a lot here in OR...where my handgun is stashed, it stays nice and dry..!)  Â
@Playanekes Well stated
@Playanekes HERE HERE!
 @Ack Open carry laws very from State to State, in Illinois it's illegal to carry a loaded firearm on your person, until now.
@Ack  Perhaps not everyone wants to wear a pistol in plain sight of everyone. Also, for those of us who like tight little black dresses and high heels, our handbag is really the only appropriate place to carry it. Besides, it is our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
@wondering There are some slick bra holsters that work good for a small .380 for example. http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=13372
 @wondering I thought the amendment (ha, spelled it right this time!) pertains to bearing arms rather than hiding them... am I missing something?
@Ack @wondering thank you, and you make an arguable point; the Constitution guarantees a right to keep and bear, but it doesn't say anything about concealing at all.
@wondering wearing a holster and a bandolier over a little black dress makes it even hotter. Just so you know.
COOL!
We live in a crazy country when everyone starts to believe that they need guns at home and a concealed weapon for self-defense outside of the home. Good grief. How many people in this country have ever had their house broken into and had their family threatened and how many people have ever needed a gun in public to defend themselves. Sure there are instances of this happening but not very often, particularly here in Oregon. How paranoid has this country become when we all start believing that we all have to carry guns to protect ourself against other gunmen and the Federal government? Pretty paranoid if you ask me.Â
 @peckishpete Tell that to those who were in the mall( and those law biding CHL holders that honored the "No firearms " posting there and stayed away from a a place that discriminates against them. I wonder if the maggot would have actually survived to shoot anyone after he fired into the ceiling if there was one of us CHL holders around....
@peckishpete when you consider that an 11 year old and a 7 year old recently tried to carjack a lady with a loaded and cocked pistol, I'd say that is not paranoid - just common sense
@Mike_J Again, how many times do you read that these things happen? You gun advocates want us to believe that this could happen anytime and anywhere at a high frequency rate. That simply is not the case and you know it.
 @peckishpete  @Mike_J two in one week , that is not enough for you. As for the 11 year old, here is a quote that stands true today: " God made man in his image, Sam Colt made them equal". There is no age difference when someone threatens you with a gun. That 11 year old was lucky with the victim he chose.
@peckishpete our neighbor woke up to somebody in his house on Sunday. He chased the perp out, who ran through our neighbor's yard, jumped his fence, ran around in my hard trying to get out, and tore down part of my neighbor's fence trying to get into -his- back yard. Unfortunately for him, that neighbor is a MCSD deputy. More importantly, though, I grew up in the country. When somebody tried to break into our house, it was 20 or 30 minutes before the police could show up.
@Playanekes Again, how often do these type of things happen? Hourly? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? NO they don't. Sure you might be in the wrong place at the wrong time but is that worth having everyone carry a concealed weapon at all times and in all places? NO!
 @peckishpete  @Playanekes ~ Well, peckish, I can't speak for others, but I can tell you that if you walked by me on the street or stood in line near me at the grocery store, you couldn't tell whether or not I was carrying... HOWEVER; if you walked up to me in my car and demanded my car, money, whatever, you would be very likely to find out... I'm not a threat to anyone, and I hope more than anything that I will never have to use my handgun except at the range, on paper targets. Â
What I'm saying is that 99.9% of the people who have CHLs and carry are not a threat; all they're doing is carrying a handgun "just in case"... and most of the time, you wouldn't know they had it, unless and until they had to use it. Â Â
@Civ @Playanekes Well there's a real intelligent, civilized post. You must be proud of yourself.
 @peckishpete  @Playanekes Yes it is just like having car insurance. You hope you never need it but are glad you have it just in case.
 I will make sure to not use my gun around you though , even if you are having your throat ripped out.
@peckishpete I'd rather have a gun and not need then to need a gun and not have it. Just sayin...
@cantcurestupid yes. And, put another way, if you KNEW you were going to need a gun where you were going you probably wouldn't go there in the first place, and if you had to, you'd go with something better than a pistol... Shotgun, rifle, friends, cops...
@peckishpete   You especially need it in Oregon! Do you not read the news of the daily murders or attempted murders? That 11 year old punk was very lucky to have pulled a loaded and cocked weapon on a non-carrier.
@wondering Would you cite some statistical evidence to support your arguement that murders and attempted murders happen on a daily basis? And I'm not talking about inner city ghettos. I'm talking about the places most Americans live.
 @peckishpete  @wondering Most places that america lives are armed societies that take care of thier own. Most shootings happen in cities where firarms are discriminated against and bans are in place. That is why you dont see these types of killings all over, only in liberal gun hating cities.
This is great news for the people of Illinois! Â Unfortunately, Repoman is probably right, they can put all kinds of red tape between a citizen and his/her CHL. Â It all depends on how friendly the county sheriff is to CC but at least the STATE isn't given the power to restrict everybody and that's a big deal. Â Chicago residents might get hosed, but the outlying counties might not be.
Â
 @negativerep ~  Um-hmm...  You can (supposedly) get a CHL in California (or you could when I lived there, anyway), but you either had to have a lot of money or a lot of pull (be a celeb or politico or similar) ~ or have some pull with the local sheriff to actually get one...  I don't know what it's like in the outlying counties, but in metro areas, eg: San Francisco, forget it, if you're a regular citizen...
Good move for Illinois on the part of the appellate court, anyway... Â
Very deceptive headline writing, KATU. They didn't strike down the concealed carry law, but the BAN on concealed carry! Don't let your prejudices show too much now!
Chicago should try the "New York City" model.
Â
In law there is no prohibition for getting a CHL. But New York State is a "can issue" state, but it is not obligated to issue a CHL unless the county feels it should.
Â
Thus as it is written I could move to New York and get a CHL. But in practice no one ever gets one because they simply don't issue them.
Â
D.C. has the same thing with both weapons AND carry permits. Since the ban was lifted years ago ONE PERSON has been able to get through all of the loopholes to get permission to own a handgun in D.C.
Â
 @Repoman B.S.
I am very happy about this news myself because Illinois and Chicago has some of the highest murder rates in the nation. Â This is because they banned guns like NYC. Â If people could defend themselves, there wouldn't be as many problems.
Had our founding fathers had a glimpse at the world today they would have never worded the second amendment like that.....too late now though.
@deejm2112 I agree with whatever comedian it who said that if the founding fathers had a glimpse at the world today, the first jet they saw would blow their minds. Were I there with them, I would say "these are products of a civilization you created. We're doing alright down here."
 @Playanekes  @deejm2112 ~  Then they'd take a look at the monstrous Federal government, and they'd all have heart attacks or strokes and die all over again..!  :-)
 @deejm2112 Probably right, they would have demanded that every adult own a gun, and know how to clean & fire it properly.
@Jamie @deejm2112 I do believe that Switzerland requires everyone to know how to use a weapon
As a former Illinoisan, congrats to the remaining residents of Illinois. While the Cook country residents are likely to still end up with something fairly oppressive, the down staters will happily join the rest of the United States in enjoying responsible freedom.