* We’re going to look at different aspects of yesterday’s blockbuster US Appeals Court ruling on the right to carry guns outside one’s home. So, please stick to the topic of the individual post. Thanks.
Let’s start with something that appears to permeate the decision. The majority justices seemed to go out of their way yesterday to calm frayed nerves over their ruling that declared Illinois firearm carrying laws unconstitutional.
* For example, the majority cited statistics from a book by John Donohue, which illustrates the type of people who usually apply for concealed carry permits…
“[T]he change in gun carrying appears to be concentrated in rural and suburban areas where crime rates are already relatively low, among people who are at relatively low risk of victimization—white, middle-aged, middle-class males. The available data about permit holders also imply that they are at fairly low risk of misusing guns, consistent with the relatively low arrest rates observed to date for permit holders. Based on available empirical data, therefore, we expect relatively little public safety impact if courts invalidate laws that prohibit gun carrying outside the home, assuming that some sort of permit system for public carry is allowed to stand.”
* The court also discussed various avenues that Illinois could use to regulate concealed carry, including…
Apart from the usual prohibitions of gun ownership by children, felons, illegal aliens, lunatics, and in sensitive places such as public schools, the propriety of which was not questioned in Heller… some states sensibly require that an applicant for a handgun permit establish his competence in handling firearms. 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.
* The judges even suggested that open carry could be required…
If guns cannot be carried outside the home, an officer who has reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk a person and finds a concealed gun on him can arrest him, as in United States v. Mayo, 361 F.3d 802, 804-08 (4th Cir. 2004), and thus take the gun off the street before a shooting occurs; and this is argued to support the ban on carrying guns outside the home. But it is a weak argument. Often the officer will have no suspicion (the gun is concealed, after all). And a state may be able to require “open carry”—that is, require persons who carry a gun in public to carry it in plain view rather than concealed. See District of Columbia v. Heller, supra, 554 U.S. at 626; James Bishop, Note, “Hidden or on the Hip: The Right(s) to Carry After Heller,” 97 Cornell L. Rev. 907, 920–21 (2012). Many criminals would continue to conceal the guns they carried, in order to preserve the element of surprise and avoid the price of a gun permit; so the police would have the same opportunities (limited as they are, if the concealment is effective and the concealer does not behave suspiciously) that they
* Not everything they said was calming, however. They cited study after study which showed no material increase in gun violence following concealed carry enactment, but then added…
In sum, the empirical literature on the effects of allowing the carriage of guns in public fails to establish a pragmatic defense of the Illinois law… Anyway the Supreme Court made clear in Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear arms depend on casualty counts… If the mere possibility that allowing guns to be carried in public would increase the crime or death rates sufficed to justify a ban, Heller would have been decided the other way, for that possibility was as great in the District of Columbia as it is in Illinois.
In other words, concealed probably won’t increase gun deaths, but if it does, too bad.
* Related…
* Sun-Times: Do right-to-carry laws cut crime? Debate has raged at U. of C.
- Plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 10:34 am:
No hyperbole in the use of the word ‘raged’ is there?
- Downstater - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 10:38 am:
There seems to be no evidence that concealed carry results in more or less crime or gun deaths. Criminals and lunatics with guns do.
It’s the law in 49 other states, including some pretty liberal states. I don’t understand the opposition to concealed carry.
- tom dunn - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 10:39 am:
even though the nra gave me a “d” while in the legislature even though i was an all American trap shooter, combat marine in viet nam, hunter at 13, etc, the bad guys had guns why not the good people. so i voted yes back in the day.still havent heard from the friendly folks at nra and dont care to.
- Just Observing - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 10:39 am:
I do not own a gun, but I am very much in favor of the ruling. That said, is ISRA, NRA, et. al. ok with open carry or do they only want concealed carry?
- reformer - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 10:47 am:
I favor concealed carry, but I’m not under the misapprension that it will have any significant effect on crime, particularly on murders in Chicago. The people being shot are mainly young males who wouldn’t qualify for a permit anyway.
- Sunshine - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 10:50 am:
Hopefully any rules regarding concealed carry in Illinois will honor permits from other states?
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 10:51 am:
Minor point, but 7th Circuit judges are referred to as “judges,” not “justices.” In the federal system, only members of the Supereme Court carry the title of “justice.” In Illinois, intermediate appellate court judges also carry the title of “justice.”
- Madison - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 10:51 am:
The relationships (or lack of) are pretty clear here, the lunatics are the enemy, law abiding citizens are statistically not. Perhaps we need to invest more time and money identifying the former, and less time and money persecuting the latter.
- Jechislo - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 10:51 am:
I think both open carry and concealed carry are constitutional. Illinois, led by Chicago, is the anomaly here since 49 other States have complied.
It is apparent that concealed carry, and possibly open carry, will become law in Illinois. It’s about time Illinois is made to abide by the Constitution.
If Chicago again tries to dictate some Chicago-based solution based upon their disgust for the Constitutionality of this issue, I believe they will again get slapped down by the courts.
It’s been a long time coming. Illinois, welcome to the rest of the county.
- siriusly - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 10:54 am:
I am really just shocked at the ruling. Debate on the crime reduction or personal safety issues aside, I don’t see how allowing everyone to carry a gun anywhere equates to a well regulated militia.
Ironic to me that in the ABC-7 Chicago news story on the issue last night they talked to woman who trains people to shoot, she said that more people are interested in personal protection from home invasions. Really? Right to bear arms at home has never been in question.
Later in the news there was a story of a man who shot a burglar in his house. Again, had a gun in his house - totally legal always has been.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 10:55 am:
I’m personally no fan of open carry, and would strenuously object to any legislation that mandates only open carry. It would be like passing a law requiring everyone to wear an outer garment with their religious beliefs printed on their backs in six inch fluorescent letters.
- just sayin' - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 10:55 am:
Experience in other states shows that people who get these permits don’t want to lose them. We’ll be fine. In fact I do think there will be some reduction in crime. Plus there can still be tons of reasonable regs, like can’t bring into workplace etc. etc.
I just still think it’s weird how it’s mostly men who are so gung-ho on carrying a gun. Most don’t need them unless they are compensating for something.
It’s the female nurse or someone else working late shift that I’m happy for. It really is the great equalizer as Samuel Colt once famously said about his product.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 10:56 am:
“Right to bear arms at home has never been in question.”
Chicago, Oak Park and Evanston residents would be very surprised to learn this nugget.
- AC - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 11:00 am:
The research is so inconclusive that erring on the side of freedom makes the most sense. Of course, much, but not all of the research seems to be from groups that are are somewhat biased. What everyone focused on gun laws fails to realize is that gun laws are mostly irrelevant when a culture of violence is the driving factor. The debate over the constitutionality and appropriateness of gun laws and concealed carry is much easier to understand than the issues which truly drive crime.
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 11:09 am:
As the debate about crime reduction and concealed carry continues unresolved, with some interesting legal consequences, as in the Sun Times article linked here, I’ve been torn about concealed carry. I support concealed carry, but I know that we’re not Clint Eastwoods, killing bad people in every instance. However, I get sickened when I see stories like the one the other day in which a woman was attacked in Chicago’s Uptown neighborhood. She was saved by a man who luckily was around and intervened, fighting off the attacker, who was arrested. I want to see such victims be able to better defend themselves. There is also the current story in which a home invader was shot at by a homeowner in DuPage County.
A terrible story that I won’t forget was when two women were attacked not far from my job with a baseball bat a few years ago. One of the women was severely injured (I think she’s from Ireland). Also, violent crime is so bad in some neighborboods that how can it hurt if law-abiding residents are allowed to conceal-carry? Maybe there can then be organizations of concerned citizens and parents who would patrol the neighborhoods and show the violent criminals a presence.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 11:09 am:
===I don’t see how allowing everyone to carry a gun anywhere===
Hyperbole alert.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 11:26 am:
===I just still think it’s weird how it’s mostly men who are so gung-ho on carrying a gun. Most don’t need them unless they are compensating for something.===
What’s with the compensation slam? Why is it considered appropriate to question supporters motivation by implying some kitchen table psychobabble as a reason?
It’s not cute and just makes you look silly.
- siriusly - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 11:29 am:
Sorry, I apologize. You’re right, that was an inaccurate description.
But still, I don’t get the militia thing.
- dupage dan - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 11:59 am:
siriusly,
the issue of the “militia thing” has been dealt with. The SCOTUS declared in the most recent rulings that the 2nd Amendment is made up of 2 parts. The right to keep and bear arms is one part and the seperate and distinct second part is about the well trained militia.
Let’s look at it another way. You state that you are OK with folks keeping arms in their homes for personal protection. How does that square with your views on the whole “militia thing”? Am I automatically signed up as a member of this imaginary militia so long as I am possessing a firearm in my own home? Is that all it takes to become a member in this well trained militia?
Please don’t let reality get in the way of your fuzzy thinking.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 12:03 pm:
===Am I automatically signed up as a member of this imaginary militia so long as I am possessing a firearm in my own home? Is that all it takes to become a member in this well trained militia?===
From the Illinois Constitution…
ARTICLE XII
MILITIA
SECTION 1. MEMBERSHIP
The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law.
- Confused - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 12:28 pm:
“Most don’t need them unless they are compensating for something.”
I totally admit to wanting to carry a concealed carry firearm in order to compensate for an anatomical shortcoming. It’s also the reason I speak loudly and often on political issues - makes me feel like a real man. Are you now going to discriminate against me because of my physical shortcomings? Or do I get to exercise my constitutional rights for any reason I darn well please?
- Just Observing - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 12:34 pm:
=== Ironic to me that in the ABC-7 Chicago news story on the issue last night they talked to woman who trains people to shoot, she said that more people are interested in personal protection from home invasions. Really? Right to bear arms at home has never been in question. ===
Just because ABC 7 ran a story quoting some random persons doesn’t define the issue.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 12:40 pm:
===like passing a law requiring everyone to wear an outer garment with their religious beliefs printed on their back===
C’mon Ken. It’s nothing of the sort. Open carry gives you the right to have your firearm with you and gives me the right to know and determine whether or not I want to be in your company. I think it’s the best option for Illinois if we have to implement this, as the courts have so ordered.
Comparing this to religion freedom is ridiculous hyperbole. That’s only a good analogy if you feel that gun owners are somehow going to be persecuted for exercising their rights.
- titan - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 12:40 pm:
@siriusly - In the days when the constitution was written, the militia was every able bodied man (usually from the ages of about 16 to 60). They were there to call upon to help keep order/common defense where the troops or law enforcement were too far away to be useful.
It was a way to ensure the people could defend/protect themselves (because the government can’t often do so).
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 12:44 pm:
I don’t like open carry because I think it invites theft. One of the worst fears of a police officer is somebody grabbing his gun. Concealed weapons can’t be seen by the bad guys. I prefer that to open.
Look, if you’ve traveled outside Illinois, you’ve undoubtedly walked past, sat next to or even talked with dozens, if not hundreds, of people who were carrying concealed, loaded pistols. Did you even think about that the last time you were in Miami, or Denver or Phoenix?
- titan - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 12:45 pm:
@47th - Open carry does undo some of the collateral protection factor of carrying.
If an armed miscreant goes into a bank in a CCW jurisdiction, anyone else could be carrying - and he doesn’t know who. The unarmed are somewhat collaterally protected by that uncertainty factor.
With open carry only, the miscreant goes into the bank and just shoots the two obviously armed patrons there, and may then proceed to rob the rest of teh folks (whom he knows to be unarmed).
- Ken_in_Aurora - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 12:51 pm:
@- Confused - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 12:28 pm:
Thanks, dude - now I have to clean coffee off my screen.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 12:55 pm:
=== Comparing this to religion freedom is ridiculous hyperbole. That’s only a good analogy if you feel that gun owners are somehow going to be persecuted for exercising their rights. ===
I see the similarity, no hyperbole. Why should someone choosing to exercise their right to self defense have their choice exposed by open carry? We don’t require people who exercise their freedon of religion right to do the same.
And yes - open carry is very much subject to persecution.
- dupage dan - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 12:56 pm:
Ok, so I am in the militia, well trained or not. As a non card carrying member, I am useless unless I am carrying my weapon
- 332bill - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 12:57 pm:
Why is everyone talking like the law can only be open OR concealed carry. In many states (Tennesee is one) it can be either; the carrier decides how he wants to carry.
- Just Observing - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 1:14 pm:
=== Why is everyone talking like the law can only be open OR concealed carry. In many states (Tennesee is one) it can be either; the carrier decides how he wants to carry. ===
I think people are discussing the pros/cons of a an open or concealed mandate (no choice) — which is a possibility. However, your contention is valid.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 1:17 pm:
=== We don’t require people who exercise their freedon of religion right to do the same===
Yes, because if you accidentally drop your bible I’m not likely to be killed or maimed. Gun owners have rights, but public safety trumps individual rights. Try yelling FIRE in a crowded theater.
- Confused - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 1:22 pm:
Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater when there actually IS a fire is laudable. How many people where the victims of violent crime in Illinois this year?
- dupage dan - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 1:24 pm:
I understand that citizens have rights - gun owners have the right to keep and bear arms, others should be able to know that those carrying a weapon have some reasonable training and are not personally dangerous folks.
We should keep that issue to individual circumstances of personal conduct rather than a blanket denial of the right to keep and bear.
- Precinct Captain - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 1:28 pm:
Ken, you’re analogy is junk. Certainly, having the gun with me in an open carry situation telegraphs something, but I could walk around wearing a yarmulke all day and not be Jewish, I’d just look like an idiot if people actually knew. Having an open carry gun doesn’t mean I actually would be a shooting expert or be able to react appropriately if a situation arose. So people extrapolating certain beliefs from it is just them being judgmental. Similarly, if I drive a foreign car, someone could conclude I hate America, but of course, that would not be a very logical conclusions, just as judging someone having an open carry gun is not necessarily a Wayne Lapierre -style nut.
- Precinct Captain - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 1:29 pm:
you’re* should be “your”
- Ken_in_Aurora - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 1:41 pm:
@ - Precinct Captain - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 1:28 pm:
I think you’re going well beyond the question at point. Why should someone that chooses to exercise their 2A rights be required to do it so publicly?
- Ahoy! - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 1:46 pm:
–Apart from the usual prohibitions of gun ownership by children, felons, illegal aliens, lunatics, and in sensitive places such as public schools,–
Why can’t we have guns in schools? Or is that because it would be dangerous to have guns in schools?
- Lawyer Dude - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 1:53 pm:
U.S. Appellate Court judges are not referred to as “justices”. They are judges.
- Econ Prof - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 2:00 pm:
I prefer Vermont’s gun laws. Open or concealed, no permit required. In fact, they won’t even issue a permit, because they don’t believe you should need a permit to carry.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 2:21 pm:
I don’t understand the logic of the “sensitive areas” distinction. That is completely “judicial activism.”
What makes an area more sensitive than others to law-abiding citizens carrying firearms?
The whole argument seems to suggest that there is a danger to allowing CCW, so some areas need to be protected from it.
If you have the right to carry a weapon, why wouldn’t you be allowed to carry it in a school? Those unarmed kids need protection of law-abiding citizens from the crazies, right?
Why shouldn’t you be allowed to carry a gun into a courtroom, or a city council chamber, or the General Assembly? Those places have, or can easily arrange, armed protection by police. If everyone’s packing, what’s the danger?
- titan - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 3:35 pm:
@wordslinger - the sensitive areas idea can be viewed as the opposite of judicial activism - it allows deference to the legislature to make a decision (and if supported by a reasonable foundation, it should be sustained).
Schools? Maybe a magnet for the disgruntled where the legislature wants the police to nab anyone with one. Maybe a very high concentration of children so as to increase the odds of accident to a level that outweighs the individual self defense basis. Maybe something else that the legislature would properly decide.
Government offices and courts are indeed magnets for disruntled crazies.
- Downstater - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 3:46 pm:
=Look, if you’ve traveled outside Illinois, you’ve undoubtedly walked past, sat next to or even talked with dozens, if not hundreds, of people who were carrying concealed, loaded pistols. Did you even think about that the last time you were in Miami, or Denver or Phoenix? =
Are you talking about legal concealed carry or illegal concealed carry(criminals or soon to be criminals)? If legal concealed carry, most people will not be walking around with a concealed handgun, since they would be limited to access of many public and private business, parks, and other venues.
Probably more illegal concealed carry walking around than legal, but again just a guess.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 3:59 pm:
–Government offices and courts are indeed magnets for disruntled crazies.–
I haven’t noticed a lack of disgruntled crazies anywhere, certainly not on the streets, or in the stores, or parking lots. And they are mobile, and bring it anywhere.
Rich, I’m quite certain that on most days I pass those packing illegal guns on the el and on the streets, and nothing’s happened. I’m not convinced increasing the volume of guns in the public way makes anyone safer.
Folks get shot and killed by heretofore law-abiding citizens all the time.
- downstate commissioner - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 4:05 pm:
Something to think about re concealed vs. open carry-wouldn’t a man in a suit coat look silly with a belt and holster over his suit coat? If he wears it on his belt, and the jacket covers it=concealed weapon. What about a woman in a nice dress? I can’t function without pockets, can’t imagine how a women does-except they carry purses. Gun in it=concealed carry. Open carry might be okay for a shop owner, but what about a salesman making cold calls? A person showing up selling something with a gun displayed would put a lot of people off,IF they opened the door. (actually it would put me off, and I support concealed and open carry.) I believe that many people would do both, depending on the occasion, or other people around involved.
- Fight for the Lake Forest - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 4:07 pm:
Open carry just means I won’t get robbed, they guy who isn’t carrying will.
Works for me.
- Jeeper - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 4:18 pm:
@titan: The places you mentioned are, indeed, magnets for the disgruntled. Disgruntled - and even crazy - poeple get in those places adn shoot people from time to time. Is that not against the law now? How does keeping non-disgruntled (simply “gruntled”?) and sane people from taking legally possessed and carried weapons into these places make them safer from those previously mentioned? I don’t see that it does.
@Downstater: True; MOST people will not be wandering around with a gun. The licensee population in most states is a minority, as far I know. Still, if you travel much, you have had some contact with permit holders who are packing…
- Confused - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 4:22 pm:
I always thought government buildings were where the criminals hang out - and work.
- Esquire - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 4:39 pm:
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution applies to Illinois after all. What a surprise!
Kudos to the the various local governments that scrapped their handgun ordinances after the previous US Supreme Court decisions without filing more costly lawsuits.
- western illinois - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 6:07 pm:
These Judges did not like Heller at least not all of them. I think Posner is trying to stick it to a Supremer Court and clog the system with gun litigation.Thi is just a hunch but I think he is setting it up so the court will reverse itself on Heller if Obama get to replace a conservative
- motambe - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 8:27 pm:
Note to Rep. Currie that this ruling means “guns out of control on each of our city streets.” Does she not read the papers about killings in Chicago and East St. Louis? We already have that thanks to the gangbangers. After a year of CCW the Chicago democrats will be asking why aren’t all the newly, legally armed downstate Illinoisans killing each other? Hey, how about this idea? Maybe it’s a cultural problem! People practice self-control and self-discipline. Maybe their parents (2) taught them conflict resolution, not execution! They have respect for the law, and understand there are consequences if your personal actions violate the law.
Years ago after Florida passed CCW, after several carjackers were killed in the Miami area by armed citizens, the carjackers began following rental cars leaving the airport - unarmed victims. The car rental agencies had to eliminate identification and special license plates on their cars to protect the customers.
It’s time to legally arm the citizens of Illinois, especially the potential victims in Chicago and East St. Louis.
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Dec 12, 12 @ 9:35 pm:
Motambe-that assertion about the Florida CCW law driving the Miami thugs to target tourists in rental cars falls somewhere between urban legend and unadulterated hooey.
Please give us a source for that.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 1:38 am:
Wow Motambe, that’s either brilliant satire or disturbing commentary.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 9:35 am:
Motambe’s story about targeting rental cars and changing license plates is true. But I think that was before the state passed a carry law.
- motambe - Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 12:48 pm:
47th ward - maybe a little of both. Satire yes. But I am also disturbed over indiscriminate killing and domestice violence. Trying to stimulate discussion - what are the causes? Poverty? Education (lack of)? No job opportunities? No future except the street and being a player? Greed? 60 years if social programs and young men black, latino and white are killing each other over the wrong colors, facial expressions, turf. This is crazy and poisonous to our cities.
- Jeeper - Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 1:58 pm:
@Confused: Recent stories on this blog and elsewhere seem to support the notion that the government building where the criminals work has a dome, a big silver dome…
- Jeeper - Thursday, Dec 13, 12 @ 2:14 pm:
@47th ward - Motambe didn’t make it up: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20110244,00.html
The earliest national news story of the type was - I believe - in the pre-WWW “dark ages” of the late 1980’s but after the passage of the Florida “Shall Issue” law. Sadly, I cannot find it…
That said, it apparently cuts both ways, though only rarely does a foreign tourist kill an American in Florida: http://articles.philly.com/1994-04-04/news/25863469_1_canadian-tourist-german-tourist-rental-car
Florida HAS eliminated its rental car vehicle tags as a result, according to this last article.