* An e-mail from NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde about yesterday’s Illinois Supreme Court rulings on the right to carry guns in public…
Rich — here is the dilemma the state is now in.
Both the Federal Court and now the State Supreme Court have said that that there is a right to carry a firearm in public.
So the state passed a law that provides a way to carry a gun in public — get a carry permit. Yet, as of today, no carry permit exists for people to obtain. No state courses have been approved for people to even take to be able to apply for their permit.
So what is the relief? If the Courts say, carry ban unconstitutional, and the State has no way for us to comply with the “relief” of obtaining a carry permit — now what? And a growing amount of thinking is it is legal to carry today with a FOID card.
Now remember that for 90 days we have had FOID carry in 15 counties. No extra training. No extra anything. And I have yet to hear of any problems, road rage incidents, fights over parking spots, shootouts at Starbucks or anything in those 15 counties.
The court said on page 8:
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 self defense 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.”
So tell me how the state or the Court allows the ban on carry, in effect today, to go on any longer?
He has a point.
* Here is the language for 24-1.6(a)(1)…
Sec. 24-1.6. Aggravated unlawful use of a weapon.
(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon when he or she knowingly:
(1) Carries on or about his or her person or in any vehicle or concealed on or about his or her person except when on his or her land or in his or her abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person’s permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm
And here’s (a)(3)(A) …
(3) [Or] One of the following factors is present:
(A) the firearm, other than a pistol, revolver, or handgun, possessed was uncased, loaded, and immediately accessible at the time of the offense
* And here’s the response to the rulings from the Second Amendment Foundation…
he Second Amendment Foundation is applauding the Illinois State Supreme Court, which has unanimous ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is not confined to the home and that a state statute regarding aggravated unlawful use of weapons (AUUW) violates the Second Amendment.
In the ruling, written by Justice Robert R. Thomas, the court states, “As the Seventh Circuit correctly noted, neither Heller nor McDonald expressly limits the Second Amendment’s protections to the home. On the contrary, both decisions contain language strongly suggesting if not outright confirming that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home.”
“This is one more court rejection of claims by anti-gunners that the right to keep and bear arms is somehow confined to the home,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.
The case at issue, Illinois v. Alberto Aguilar, dates back to June 12, 2008, slightly more than two weeks prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller.
The case challenged a section of the law that prohibited carrying firearms outside the home that, according to the court, “…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.”
The court footnotes that the Illinois General Assembly has enacted the state’s Firearm Concealed Carry Act due to SAF’s victory in Moore v. Madigan, which is cited in today’s ruling. The Act amended the state statute to “allow for a limited right to carry certain firearms in public.” The court also noted that “Neither the Firearms Concealed Carry Act nor the amended (state) statute is at issue in this case.”
Still, recognition that the AUUW section violated the Second Amendment is significant, Gottlieb said.
“Here we have a state Supreme Court declaring a section of state law unconstitutional under the Second Amendment,” he said. “That would not have happened without our victories in McDonald and Moore, and it affirms our effort to win back firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.”
And yet, yesterday’s Supreme Court decisions received almost no media coverage in Illinois.