* 9:57 am - The Illinois Supreme Court has issued two gun-control rulings that are undoubtedly bringing great cheer to the NRA.
In the first, People v. Aguilar, a person was arrested in his own friend’s Chicago yard because he was holding a pistol. The Supremes cited the Heller decision and the 7th US Circuit’s recent landmark public carry decision (Moore v. Madigan) to knock down the arrest as unconstitutional…
if Heller means what it says, and “individual self-defense” is indeed “the central component” of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms (Heller, 554 U.S. at 599), then it would make little sense to restrict that right to the home, as “[c]onfrontations are not limited to the home.” Moore, 702 F.3d at 935-36 […]
Of course, in concluding that the second amendment protects the right to possess and use a firearm for self-defense outside the home, we are in no way saying that such a right is unlimited or is not subject to meaningful regulation. See infra ¶¶ 26-27. That said, we cannot escape the reality that, in this case, we are dealing not with a reasonable regulation but with a comprehensive ban. Again, in the form presently before us, section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) categorically prohibits the possession and use of an operable firearm for selfdefense outside the home. In other words, section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) amounts to a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that is specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as construed by the United States Supreme Court. In no other context would we permit this, and we will not permit it here either
However, the defendant in the case was just 17 years old at the time of his arrest and the Supremes decided that the statute regarding age minimums was constitutional…
…for present purposes, we need only express our agreement with the obvious and undeniable conclusion that the possession of handguns by minors is conduct that falls outside the scope of the second amendment’s protection
* The second case, Coram v. Illinois, involved a man who pled guilty to domestic battery in 1992 and paid a $100 fine. At the time, there was no prohibition against Coram possessing a firearm or receiving a FOID card. When he applied for a FOID in 2009, however, he was denied based on a 1996 federal law. The Supremes upheld his right to a FOID card. Read it here.
*** UPDATE *** From John Boch of GunsSaveLife.com in comments…
Our take on the decision: The IL Supreme Court has said today that until and unless the Illinois State Police begin issuing carry licenses, Illinois has a flat prohibition on carry of firearms outside the home and that, ladies and gentlemen, has just been recognized and determined to be in violation of the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the second amendment to the United States Constitution.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 10:11 am:
Huh. Was your front yard considered outside your home? I assumed home encompassed your private property.
I know you can’t run around naked in your front yard — but you can’t hang around naked in your front window, either.
- Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 10:19 am:
Nice to see some common-sense logic and reasoning applied by the Supremes.
While some folks will surely like to think they know the law better than the judges do, this seems like a straightforward and balanced verdict.
- Todd - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 10:25 am:
Word–ever sense Heller all we have herd from the rabid anti-gunners is that Heller only applied to owning a handgun inside one’s home. Today that notion was completely trashed
So considering, the Chicago having to gut thier ordinance, Colorado, and now this, pretty good week.
- Lobo Y Olla - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 10:29 am:
Justice Thomas specifically noted that the AG chose not to appeal Heller.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 10:29 am:
Don’t forget Iowa Todd, where even the blind can get firearm permits. Yes, a very good week for ISRA.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 10:33 am:
==where even the blind can get firearm permits==
We’ll see if a law is introduced to prohibit this and how the gun groups react to such a proposal. Seems like common sense that a blind person shouldn’t have a gun, but hey, that’s just me.
As for the cases, none of it is surprising. Not really a bombshell in my opinion, though it was refreshing to see them reaffirm that some restrictions are ok, such as those relating to minors. I think the Courts have done a fairly good job on sorting all of this out.
- Anon - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 10:40 am:
I believe the Chicago law, of course pre-conceal carry, prohibited ever possessing a functioning gun outside of the home-proper. So garages, porches, patios and yards were forbidden.
- Anon - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 10:43 am:
On the blind issue– This has been in practice for over 2 years. Has there been a single accident? It’s probably practiced by very few, visually impaired but not blind, and well trained.
I just love how anti-gun folks will yell and scream about something like that, while the mecca of strict gun laws is nicknamed Chiraq.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 10:56 am:
–I just love how anti-gun folks will yell and scream about something like that, while the mecca of strict gun laws is nicknamed Chiraq.–
Who’s yelling and screaming?
I’m sure you know that many cities have much higher gun violence rates than Chicago — many of them in states with the loosest gun laws.
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2013/07/chicagocrime.html
- Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 11:03 am:
=== while the mecca of strict gun laws is nicknamed Chiraq. ===
Sad but true.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 11:10 am:
**a person was arrested in his own Chicago yard because he was holding a pistol**
Not a big deal to this discussion, but he was not in his own yard. See Paragraph 4 of the decision. He was in a friend’s backyard waiting on his mom to pick him up.
- John Boch - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 11:11 am:
Our take on the decision: The IL Supreme Court has said today that until and unless the Illinois State Police begin issuing carry licenses, Illinois has a flat prohibition on carry of firearms outside the home and that, ladies and gentlemen, has just been recognized and determined to be in violation of the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the second amendment to the United States Constitution.
- RonOglesby - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 11:33 am:
Its inline with other decisions. Generally we don’t expect much from Illinois courts with regards to 2A battles, but they are even starting to accept Heller and McDonald instead of listening to the SAs that argue that SCOTUS and the 7th don’t have any impact on state courts.
This changes even the arguments the SAs can bring to the table.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 11:39 am:
Just the latest in a string of judicial defeats for the Chicago gun restrictionists. I wonder how many $millions Daley and Rahm have wasted defending these unconstitutional ordinances? With the City in such financial straits, you’d think they’d put a halt to fruitless defenses of these bad laws.
- anonymous - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 11:47 am:
Hmph. People used to think it was obvious that the 4th and 5th amendment didn’t apply to minors.
- D P Gumby - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 11:59 am:
Just remember that it has only been since the 60’s that the legal argument that the 2nd amendment included an “individual right” to a firearm was developed as a legal argument. It did not exist before and the pendulum will swing again.
- RonOglesby - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 12:06 pm:
@D P
uh, kind of. the legal argument started because just prior to that it was assumed a right. That is why so many cases for black/former slave citizenship and rights noted that to give “them” rights would have allowed them to carry arms.
it was in the 60’s that the legal theory that 1 of the bill of rights was somehow a community right and not an individual right was used to try to restrict firearms via new laws. Prior to that (looking back at the national firearms act) they focused on the type of weapon or specifically dangerous device, not whether a person had a right to arms.
- downstate commissioner - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 12:52 pm:
Agree with Ron Oglesby- the biggest impact of these rulings is that the State Supremes are accepting the Federal rulings as the law of the land, whereas the anti-gunners did not. This should eliminate some of the baloney lawsuits against guns.
Also when growing up as a kid, I read a LOT of gun magazines. There were all kinds of restrictions on when and how you could carry a gun, but very few people actually disputed the individual right concept.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 1:31 pm:
==I just love how anti-gun folks will yell and scream about something like that==
Oh please. Thinking blind people shouldn’t have guns doesn’t make anybody “anti-gun.” You know Todd referred to the rabid anti-gunners in his comment and I would agree they are out there. But comments like this indicate that their are rabid people on both sides of the issue. What is wrong with some of you people?
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 1:34 pm:
@John:
In case you missed it, concealed carry is now legal in Illinois. Maybe some of you can keep your pants on so that it can be implemented. I’m sorry you can’t strap your gun onto your hip just yet. But enough with this bull argument that your rights are being violated. They aren’t anymore.
- John Boch - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 1:52 pm:
This is the so-called cliff everyone was biting their nails about this spring, reference the Miller decision, and we’ve just gone over it.
You’re right Demoralized: concealed carry is legal, but probably not for the reason you think. *ALL* carry is legal in IL now. Open, concealed, long-guns or handguns… It’s not just concealed carry of handguns, and let me tell you why:
The Illinois carry law that was passed provides a mechanism for Illinois residents to apply for and receive a carry permit.
The only problem is, the state hasn’t yet approved any training courses, much less offered an application for the permit. Furthermore, the ISP has written on their website that the application for the license won’t be available until Jan 4.
From there, there is a 90 day window to process the applications.
And if they ISP processing of FOID card apps is any indicator, it might be next June before anyone has a concealed carry license.
As such, Illinois is without a mechanism for its residents to carry outside the home. As such, the current prohibition on the carrying of a loaded gun in public for self-defense is struck down as unconstitutional.
In plain English: There is no longer a prohibition on carrying a loaded gun outside the home, generally speaking (outside of limited areas prohibited by Federal law, etc.).
And until the State Police begins actually *issuing* licenses, unregulated carry is now the law of the land in the Prairie State.
Get used to it.
John
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 2:10 pm:
@John:
If you believe that’s true then start walking around with a gun and file a lawsuit when you are arrested. I have no problem with guns. I do have a problem with people like you who antagonize about the issue when there is NO issue to antagonize about. But that’s what people like you do. I get it.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 2:16 pm:
@John:
Also, you might pay a bit more attention to this little tidbit:
‘Of course, in concluding that the second amendment protects the right to possess and use a firearm for self-defense outside the home, we are in no way saying that such a right is unlimited or is not subject to meaningful regulation.’
I’m not sure where you are getting your interpretation that people can now walk around with guns unregulated but I think your legal logic is beyond flawed. But, as I said, try it. I’m sure the cop on the street will let you go when you explain it to him.
- walkinfool - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 2:29 pm:
“that’s what people like you do”
Let’s stop with the personal attacks. They don’t add to the commentary.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 3:35 pm:
@walking:
It wasn’t a personal attack. It was an acknowledgement that what he says is, in fact, what people like him do. It’s their job. But thanks for the scolding, Mom.
- clarencecoffee - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 4:03 pm:
Did he have a FOID? Maybe I am missing something. But assuming that he did or did not need one (not his gun) then why can’t a person right now carry with a FOID? What could they be charged with if the no carry law is now out the window?
- clarencecoffee - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 4:24 pm:
Did he have an FOID? Maybe I am missing something. But assuming that he did or did not need one (not his gun) then why can’t a person right now carry with an FOID? What could they be charged with if the no carry law is now out the window?
- Chicago Gunowner - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 5:48 pm:
Bob Thomas kicks another one through the uprights!
- Mason born - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 7:10 pm:
About time the IL supremes got some sense.
As for the blind thing it seems to me there is a problem with the ohio law. I have no problem with a blind man owning a gun (fyi i know vets who lost their sight that go hunting it’s complicated but they do) The problem to me is it is a carry permit so it seems that it might be important that you can distinguish the target background just sayin. I will say that legally blind and totally blind are very different things.
John as to the opinion thta this somehow removes all restrictions i have to agree with Demoralized on that one. That seems like a stretch. I think he is wrong in saying the current law somehow removes the ban when it is another 100+ days till anyone has a permit however i don’t think this ruling straightens that out. I carry when out of state and will one day in state but i think i’ll wait till i get a permit or the shepherd case is decided whichever comes first.
- Libertyvilles finest - Thursday, Sep 12, 13 @ 9:03 pm:
Friend of mine applied for her FOID. Got it in two weeks.