Not quite
Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* From the Stop Concealed Carry Coalition…
Court Ruling Improves Illinois’ Chances on Appeal of Concealed Gun Law
The 5th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas just held that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee the right to carry concealed weapons in public (NRA v. McCraw, decided May 20, 2013). The ruling is similar to the ruling in February 2013 by the 10th Circuit in Colorado and is consistent with a March 2013 decision by the 4th Circuit in Maryland and a November 2012 decision by the 2d Circuit in New York. All of the decisions upheld restrictions on carrying concealed weapons despite challenges that were based on the Second Amendment.
“Every federal appeals court that has looked at this issue has come to the same conclusion, except the 7th Circuit in Illinois,” said Lee Goodman, organizer of the Stop Concealed Carry Coalition. “It’s clear that the Illinois decision is an anomaly and should be appealed.”
Illinois’ Attorney General Lisa Madigan has not appealed the Illinois case, and she has not stated whether she intends to appeal. In the meantime, the Illinois legislature has been trying, under deadline pressure from the court decision, to agree upon a law that would legalize carrying concealed weapons, even though the majority of Illinoisans do not want such a law.
“Seldom does a line of recent court decisions point so clearly towards victory,” said Goodman. “Lisa Madigan should stop stalling and should appeal. She should read the court decisions, not just her popularity polls.”
Actually, the case was about whether a Texas state law prohibiting 18-20 year olds from carrying concealed weapons in public was constitutional. The court ruled there was ample precedent to uphold the ban.
Illinois completely outlawed all concealed carry by civilians. That’s an entirely different matter.
- John Boch - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:26 pm:
Thank you.
- Mason born - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:45 pm:
Rich
If no ones told you thank you for the straight down the middle reporting on this issue. Nice to see something along the lines of journalism.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:52 pm:
Good ol’ Lee Goodman…
- Formerly Known As... - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:52 pm:
Talk about twisting the meaning of a ruling!
Not like both sides haven’t done this in the past. But man.
I can only imagine how many incorrect stories Rich has saved media publications or at least bloggers from running over the years based on wacky press releases and exaggerated claims.
I’m guessing lots.
- Lee - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 1:52 pm:
Not so different, Rich. Every challenge to concealed carry restrictions has failed. This is just the latest. The direction the courts are taking is pretty clear. The 7th Circuit is the exception. No other circuit has followed it.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:01 pm:
Lee -
How many states have come to their senses and now see it your way, and then repealed CCW?
- OneMan - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:01 pm:
Restrictions, not bans….
- Carl Nyberg - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:06 pm:
If the basis for Heller is the first part of the Second Amendment is subordinate to “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” part, why are some restrictions Constitutional and others aren’t?
It seems like we’re entering into territory where the courts are interpreting the Constitution based on what they wished it says instead of what it does say.
- Carl from Chicago - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:15 pm:
Although I understand some hesitation regarding concealed carry, this hesitation is largely confined to folks with little experience in the issue. Having lived in Illinois, and also in several “shall issue” states with liberal carry laws, I must say that the Chicagoland opposition to carry strikes me as naive. Ideological, perhaps, but nonetheless naive. And from having heard Lee Goodman opine on the issue, my opinion is that he’s grasping at straws.
- Mason born - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:23 pm:
Carl,
I think the biggest fear for Lee and others of his view point is that CCW comes to IL and nothing happens. People go about their business as usual most never knowing if their neighbor is carrying. The ironic thing is that is precisely what has happened in every state. Which is why Carry restrictions over time tend to become more liberal.
- downstate commissioner - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:24 pm:
Thank you, Rich. I’ll also add my voice to those who see a difference between control, and a total ban… I never expected a wide-open carry law in Illinois, but I believe that most of the anti-gun legislators accept that we will have some sort of concealed carry law. I suspect that Lisa Madigan also accepts that; she will appeal only if the pro-gunners get too much by her standards…
- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:27 pm:
To this point, no federal court has found a Constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon.
Illinois’ ban applies to both concealed and open-carry.
Up to now, of course, states have been free to allow or restrict conceal-carry as they see fit.
- Mason born - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:28 pm:
downstate
Can She appeal if a law is passed and on the books? Wouldn’t that make case moot?
- Mason born - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:30 pm:
Wordslinger
Are you suggesting we keep the CCW ban and instead allow Open carry? Would be interesting.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:34 pm:
–Are you suggesting we keep the CCW ban and instead allow Open carry? Would be interesting.–
I’m just pointing out that to my knowledge the issue of concealment has never been addressed in any way in regards to the U.S. Constitution.
It would seem that if you believe the Posner opinion is an absolute mandate, you could change the Illinois law while still banning concealed weapons in public.
Other states allow open carry on their own.
- Mason born - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:39 pm:
Wordslinger
I just wanted to be sure i understood your point.
I have wondered that as well if a Open carry by Foid and a may issue permit for CCW wouldn’t work. That being said I think the societal norm now would be quite challenged with open carry.
- Chavez-respecting Obamist - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:42 pm:
I think I’d rather know who has a gun on them. But that’s just a guy reaction.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:48 pm:
>>>>> But that’s just a guy reaction.
When you are 60 you won’t see it the same way, especially if you are the one who needs to carry.
I don’t want the swash-buckle bravado and a challange to the gangbangers in attendance. I want to peacefully go about my business. I don’t want anyone to ever know that I was carrying.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:50 pm:
Mason, given that the majorities for Heller and McDonald are still on the court, I was surprised there weren’t four justices to grant cert on the New York law.
It’s just idle speculation (as is anything with the Supremes), but I wonder if the concealment issue might have been a factor.
I imagine it might be possible to see a Constitutional right to carry arms in certain public areas, but not to conceal them.
- G. Willickers - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:57 pm:
Illinois doesn’t have a complete ban, just the most strict.
Retired law enforcement officers, etc. are allowed to carry loaded guns.
Just saying.
–
@ Mason “I think the biggest fear for Lee and others of his view point is that CCW comes to IL and nothing happens. People go about their business as usual most never knowing if their neighbor is carrying. The ironic thing is that is precisely what has happened in every state. Which is why Carry restrictions over time tend to become more liberal.”
Really? “… And nothing happens”?
Nearly 5000 Americans have been shot and killed in just the past six months since those 20 Sandy Hook Elementary school kids were gunned down.
Or did you mean “nothing happens” for them once their dead?
Because the NRA is certainly working overtime to ensure that’s the outcome.
Now… According to what passes for logic by the more extreme gun proponents, all 5000 of those Americans should’ve also been carrying loaded guns in order to use their ability to predict the future and shoot their killer before they were shot themselves.
I guess those 20 school kids should’ve just taken their pistols out of their desks, taking care not to spill any glue or finger paints, and shot Adam Lanza first.
Or maybe that 2 year old girl in Kentucky sitting at the kitchen table should’ve shot her 5 year old brother first.
“Nothing happens.” Are you really that cold and callous?
- Mason born - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 2:58 pm:
wordslinger
I am no lawyer but love history. It definately appears, at least to me, that the acceptable and legal means of bearing arms was openly carrying arms at the time of the signing. I agree but i think a large societal shift will have to occur in this state or at least the North eastern part of the state before people learn that a gun on the hip of a Civilian is no different than on a LEO. I have been to states where open carry was more the norm and it was funny to watch the reaction from my boys and local kids their age. Mine stared the local kids acted like it wasn’t even there.
- RonOglesby - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:02 pm:
@wordslinger is right.
most historical rulings about carry have been about banning of a specific type of carry, or in this case an age limitation/restriction.
In fact I believe Illinois and the 7th’s decision is the only one dealing specifically with a complete ban on any carry (open or concealed). And numerous state rulings have ruled that you could ban ccw if you allowed open carry or ban open carry if you allowed concealed carry (like texas).
For everyone that tries to say the 7ths ruling contradicts all these others, they ignore the basic fact that in all the others there was some method of carrying or getting a permit to carry. This was not the case in illinois.
- reformer - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:03 pm:
== To this point, no federal court has found a Constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon. ==
Didn’t the Posner decision amount to the same thing?
- Demoralized - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:05 pm:
==It seems like we’re entering into territory where the courts are interpreting the Constitution based on what they wished it says instead of what it does say. ==
It’s not new territory. That’s what courts do. They interpret.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:08 pm:
–I am no lawyer but love history. It definately appears, at least to me, that the acceptable and legal means of bearing arms was openly carrying arms at the time of the signing–
It varied. Localities could certainly make you turn in your guns to the constable or sheriff while you were in town.
But with Heller and McDonald, history is pretty much out the window now that a federal right to possess a weapon has been established (however narrowly).
With all these different circuit rulings, you’d think the Supremes would have to lay down the law, so to speak, at some point. They opened this can of worms, they might as well settle the questions the decisions raised.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:11 pm:
–Didn’t the Posner decision amount to the same thing?–
Not concealed.
- downstater - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:23 pm:
@GWillickers,
How many of those 5,000 have been suicides? How many have been at the hands of someone who is lawfully allowed to own and carry a gun?
Look at everyother state that has concealed carry. That is what is being discussed. Not the murder rate. Concealed carry will help bring down the murder rate. It has everywhere else in the country.
- titan - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:24 pm:
===- reformer - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:03 pm:
== To this point, no federal court has found a Constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon. ==
Didn’t the Posner decision amount to the same thing? ===
Not at all. The 7th Circuit said a total ban on any carry fails. The GA could (probably) ban concealed if it permitted open.
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:25 pm:
Que ISRA in 3… 2…
- Ken_in_Aurora - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:34 pm:
“Illinois doesn’t have a complete ban, just the most strict.
Retired law enforcement officers, etc. are allowed to carry loaded guns.
Just saying.”
This is due to a federal law. Illinois statute has nothing to do with it.
- RonOglesby - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:41 pm:
@ reformer,
No. if you read the decision he specifically says you can regulate, regulate time place and manner and even type of carry (open or concealed) but you can’t have a blanket ban.
Illinois has jumped to the meaning that this MUST be concealed carry, but they could pass an open carry law, but still ban CCW.
The ruling was against the parts of the UUW and AUUW laws that made it impossible to carry in any way, in any place.
- SO IL M - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:51 pm:
I actually agree with wordslinger,mostly, when we usually disagree on this subject. The 2nd Ammendment recognises that people have a natural right to own and carry firearms, and states that right will not be infringed. No where does it say you have the right to conceal that weapon on your person, that part is left to States to decide how you will carry that firearm, as long as it does not infringe on your right to do so.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:58 pm:
– Concealed carry will help bring down the murder rate. It has everywhere else in the country.–
That’s silly and unsupportable. There’s no “magic bullets” for gun homicides, whether it’s very strict laws, such as in D.C., or loose laws, such as Louisiana, both of which have high murder rates.
It’s a very mixed bag as to state gun laws and homicide rates. Illinois’ homicide rate is relatively low. Missouri’s is twice as high.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
- Mason born - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:01 pm:
Let me be clear apparently reading comprehension is no longer taught.
When i say Nothing happens i mean we don’t have CCW holders shooting it out in the streets. We don’t have gangbangers marching down in mass to legally carry their guns. We don’t have guns magically going off inside a holster with no one touching them in starbucks. We don’t have Metra trains with shootouts every third stop.
What will happen is people will go about their business and in a few months they won’t even think about who is or isn’t carrying. Some people will save their own lives usually simply by presenting the weapon and most of us will never even know.
Wow is the Public school system degraded that much since i graduated??
- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:13 pm:
–The 2nd Ammendment recognises that people have a natural right to own and carry firearms, and states that right will not be infringed.–
I don’t see how natural rights enter into it, and a federal right to own a firearm was only discovered a few years ago by the Supremes. A definitive federal Constitutional marker or where and how you can carry has yet to be established.
- SO IL M - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:22 pm:
Word—Come on, if you enjoy history as much as you say, then you know what the 2nd Ammendment says, what it doesnt say, and why it is worded the way it is. Perhaps if you reread it and read up on the writings of those who wrote the first 10 Ammendments it will come to you.
- SO IL M - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:24 pm:
Come to think of it, a little reading would help people on both sides of the issue.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:31 pm:
@ Word: “I don’t see how natural rights enter into it, and a federal right to own a firearm was only discovered a few years ago by the Supremes.”
Yeah, and Brown wasn’t decided until 1954, and Escobedo until 1964, and Miranda until 1966, and… what’s your point? Isn’t that how the law works?
- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:37 pm:
–Word—Come on, if you enjoy history as much as you say, then you know what the 2nd Ammendment says, what it doesnt say, and why it is worded the way it is.–
LOL, c’mon, man. For something that is clear as bell to you, there have been quite a number of disagreements among justices as to interpretation and scholars as to intent over the years. Not to mention practice.
Why do you think the Heller and McDonald rulings were such big deals?
- Mason born - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:38 pm:
SO IL
I think the History loving part was me.
- Esquire - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:45 pm:
Lee’s analysis seems to be backwards. Illinois is out of the mainstream on concealed carry.
No other Federal Circuit Court of Appeals had to address an American state like Illinois that had ZERO opportunities for its citizens to apply for concealed carry permits. Illinois was the only state out of fifty that refused to afford its lawful citizens and residents any prospect of carrying hand guns.
I am not surprised that other Circuits have been able to cite exceptions that would limit concealed carry in certain situations or environments. These Circuits include states where gun rights are not so heavily burdened.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:52 pm:
– Illinois was the only state out of fifty that refused to afford its lawful citizens and residents any prospect of carrying hand guns.–
Yeah, well, good luck in Hawaii, Maryland and New Jersey. Or NYC, which has a larger population than 39 states.
- Mason born - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:55 pm:
Wordslinger
With the exception of NYC and Hawaii the other two did have laws more forgiving than IL. On paper even NYC and Hawaii are more lenient than IL.
I need to unplug been good discussing with you.
- walkinfool - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 6:31 pm:
Just a couple of general comments:
Wordslinger is pretty much correct on history, as it actually has happened. Both sides have tried to rewrite it to sway or comfort their supporters. I’m constantly forced to go back to original sources, or commentary like The Federalist, to recheck what someone has (often falsely) claimed about our country’s founding.
RonOglesby’s comments have moved me on the gun issue, lest anyone think their informed comments on CAPFAX are not taken seriously.
- Harry - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 8:11 pm:
This Lee Goldman sounds like a real jerk, certainly blew any crddibility he may have had, before. On its face, his claim was ridiculous as IL is teh only state that does not allow any dort of civilian concealed carry, so where did those other precedents he claims come from?–and thanks for doing real reporting, Rich.
- CrookCounty60827 - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 8:51 pm:
Rich beats Faux News-style “reporting” every time!
As for the 7th being “out of the mainstream”, it only takes one to change history…
- anon - Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 10:59 pm:
Pfft common sense gun controls.
You can give an 18 year old a weapon in the military and trust them with it — but not on the streets of the USA.
- Keith E. Turner - Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 6:28 am:
Any ‘regulation’ that infringes on our Rights to Keep and Bear Arms should be found unconstitutional.
Unless there can be shown some direct danger that would be posed by NOT restricting the carriage of Arms.
Such as allowing the mentally ill to carry Arms or allowing Arms in jails, courts and prisons where prisoners take or be given possession of a weapon in order to affect their escape.
There are no other ’sensitive places’ that warrant the Infringement of our Rights.
And any requirement that one be trained, apply for, pay a fee for and be issues a license or permit to exercise a core/fundamental Right should be unconstitutional.
Regulations that do not infringe on the Right to Bear Arms might include something like ‘must be not be carried with the muzzle pointed horizontally’ or ‘must be carried with the safety on’ or ‘must not be carried with your finger on the trigger’ or even a stipulation to carry openly or concealed.
Any other ‘regulation’ infringes on our Rights and the government is specifically precluded from do that.
- G. Willickers - Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 9:50 am:
@ Keith Turner - “Any other ‘regulation’ infringes on our Rights and the government is specifically precluded from do that.”
The Supreme Court disagrees with you and has allowed, even directly stated, that regulations are acceptable.
Even “freedom of the press” is regulated. You have to apply for a press pass at the White House for instance.
And interstate commerce, another Constitutional right, is very heavily regulated.
- jack - Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 5:04 pm:
If you have any questions regarding the CWP law or training contact www.e2c.us or 1-866-371-6111 and the Instructors at Equip 2 Conceal will be happy to help you.