Prosecutors in Chicago are telling state lawmakers they can essentially ignore a federal court ruling and not legalize concealed carry in Illinois.
The Illinois House on Tuesday held the first of two statewide hearings on how to legally allow people to carry a gun in the state. Illinois is the only state in the nation that bars anyone from carrying a pistol outside their home. In December, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said Illinois must change that.
But Paul Castiglione, policy director for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office, told lawmakers there is no need for a new law.
“Only the Illinois Supreme Court can declare a statue from (the legislature) unconstitutional,” Castiglione told lawmakers Tuesday. “I heard (someone) say that after 180 days our UUW (unlawful use of weapon) statute is unconstitutional. Not so.”
“Until the Supreme Court of the United States has spoken, state courts are not precluded from exercising their own judgments on federal constitutional measures,” said Paul Castiglione, representing the Cook County state’s attorney’s office. “Because lower federal courts exercise no appellate jurisdiction over state courts, decisions of lower federal courts are not conclusive on state courts.”
“After 180 days, anyone who decided, for example, to walk down Michigan Avenue in Chicago carrying an AK-15 would be subject to arrest and prosecution for violating the [Unlawful Use of Weapons Act,]” said Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney Paul Castiglione. He said the Cook County state’s attorney’s office intends to enforce the Illinois Unlawful Use of Weapons statute, which outlaws carrying guns in public, after the deadline, unless lawmakers change it or the Illinois Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional. “The lower federal courts, either the district courts or the courts of appeal, cannot tell the Illinois Supreme court how to rule or whether or not that law is constitutional. The only court that can resolve that split is the U.S. Supreme Court.”
The Illinois Supreme Court is currently reviewing another carry case, People v. Aguilar. “The real trigger for when this committee and this legislature has to act, I submit, is if and when the Illinois Supreme Court ever decides that the [Unlawful Use of Weapons] statute is unconstitutional.”
Rep. Mike Zalewski, a former prosecutor, immediately questioned Castiglione’s suggestion that lawmakers are not under a “ticking clock” to act, saying the Alvarez aide “kind of dropped a pretty big rhetorical bomb on some of us.”
“We should tread carefully, tread lightly on that specific conclusion because we’re charged with passing a constitutional statute down here in the next 60 to 90 days or so,” said Zalewski, D-Chicago.
Ronald Rotunda, an expert on the Illinois Constitution, sided with Zalewski.
“Whenever the 7th Circuit and the Illinois Supreme Court have a conflict, the federal court will win,” said Rotunda, a constitutional law professor at Chapman University in Orange, Calif.
The National Rifle Association says it’s non-negotiable:
Public-transportation users should to be allowed to carry guns on buses and trains.
The question surfaced during a hearing Tuesday aimed at meeting a federal court demand to draw up legislation permitting Illinoisans to carry concealed weapons. A top NRA lobbyist said he won’t bend on allowing bus and train riders to arm themselves.
“I don’t believe people who need public transportation to get around should be prohibited from exercising their constitutional right,” said lobbyist Todd Vandermyde, who later questioned the contradiction of a motorist being allowed to carry a gun in their vehicle but not a mass transit customer. […]
Last week, the leaders of the Chicago Transit Authority, Regional Transportation Authority, Metra, Pace and others wrote to House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago), calling the idea dangerous and warning it could lead to “catastrophic” results.
“The issue is that you’re dealing with a confined space where the public expects some safety,” Jordan Matyas, the RTA’s chief of staff, told the Sun-Times. “This is just going to lead to problems, and it will lead to what we believe is a lack of security and safety and possibly reduce ridership.”
I would hope the RTA had compiled some stats from other states with concealed carry to back up their nightmare scenario, but I doubt they do.
*** UPDATE 1 *** Gov Pat Quinn told reporters today that the state needs to comply with the federal appellate court order.
Quinn added, however, that he doesn’t want people carrying concealed weapons on mass transit.
Finally, the State and the City cannot evade the Landry injunction by arguing that the state courts of Illinois are not bound by decisions of lower federal courts.
As a general rule, the interpretation given to Illinois statutes by the lower federal courts is not conclusive on the courts of this state. Hanrahan v. Williams, 174 Ill.2d 268, 277, 220 Ill.Dec. 339, 673 N.E.2d 251 (1996). That rule, however, is addressed to the situation where the federal court’s decision is being invoked as precedent on a point of law. In the case before us, the Landry decision is not being cited for its legal analysis. Whether the federal court’s analysis is correct is irrelevant.
Whatever one thinks of the federal district court’s reasoning, its decision is binding because it constitutes a valid judgment by a duly-constituted tribunal on the same question presented here and prohibits the same prosecuting officials involved in this case from enforcing the same statute against the same class of defendants to which the defendant in this case belongs.
* Back on February 10th, the Chicago Tribune endorsed Robin Kelly in the 2nd Congressional District, highlighting her integrity…
Throughout her career, Kelly has been meticulous about separating her campaign activities from her government work. When she ran for state treasurer in 2010, she subtracted from her time sheets any activities that could be considered election-related. In this campaign, she resigned from her job in Cook County to run full time. That’s rare among Illinois politicians.
More important, it demonstrates the ethical compass 2nd District voters need and deserve.
After Robin Kelly lost a 2010 bid for state treasurer, the office’s chief investigator alleged she violated ethics laws by improperly reporting time off from her taxpayer-funded job as chief of staff to then-Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, the Tribune has learned.
Kelly, now a top contender in Tuesday’s special Democratic primary in the 2nd Congressional District race to succeed Jesse Jackson Jr., was at the center of an investigation by the treasurer’s executive inspector general into whether timekeeping violations took place as she campaigned for treasurer, records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show.
The inspector general also requested an audit after Dan Rutherford was sworn in…
The treasurer’s personnel rules required all of a worker’s time off to be approved ahead of time by a supervisor. But from August 2009 through December 2010 — when Kelly was campaigning for treasurer — Kelly filed 107 requests for unpaid time off, the audit found. Of those requests, 82 percent were not approved by a supervisor, but by a human resources director who reported to Kelly, the audit found. Many of those requests were submitted well after the time off had already been taken, the audit found.
In addition, the audit stated that 19 of Kelly’s 24 monthly time-off calendars in 2009-10 were OK’d before her time-off requests had received final approval. It also found 17 of those 24 calendars were approved late and three were never approved.
It appeared Kelly “could come and go as she pleased without consequence,” Ringler wrote. “It also appears that (her time-off) calendars were made to match the times that they needed to, in order to end up with a 35-hour work week and/or 7-hour day, because of the number of times they were approved, reversed, reapproved, reversed again, approved a third time, etc.”
Too late for Toi Hutchinson, unfortunately.
* And speaking of Hutchinson, the Kankakee Daily Journal is upset that so many people wasted their votes on her during early balloting…
(T)he withdrawal pretty much insults the local Kankakee County Democratic Party, which endorsed her, and those Republican officials who had expressed support for her. It becomes very clear, on the scale of district politics, the local influence here is as light as a feather on the scale.
* Meanwhile, this is pretty odd. Candidate Anthony Beale attacked President Obama’s gun record in a press release slap at Kelly…
In an unusual turn for a candidate seeking election next week in a heavily African American District, the Beale statement, released Tuesday, went on to question President Obama’s commitment to reducing gun violence.
“All of my opponents are saying I will stand with the President, but President Obama needs to stand with us in Chicago,” Beale says in the statement. “We never stopped fighting this fight.”
It then cites a series of articles that question Obama’s past positions on gun control, then points back to Beale: “By comparison, Anthony Beale’s record on guns is the strongest and most consistent of anyone in this race for the 2nd CD.”
That includes Christian Science Monitor article in September 2012: In making that comparison (gun control records of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney) Obama has only ever signed laws “expanding gun owners’ rights.”
“It’s not so shocking then that the Brady Campaign “gave Obama an F” in January 2010,” Beale’s statement concludes.
*** UPDATE *** Despite Ald. Beales’ press release, he says in his new TV ad that he will “work with President Obama” for stronger gun laws. Watch…
[ *** End Of Update *** ]
* But there’s a serious contradiction in Beale’s gun stance. This is what he told NBC5 a while back…
Q: What kind of guns do you own?
A: A 30-.06 rifle, and 1187 Remington shotgun, and a 9 millimeter Glock. As aldermen, were legally allowed to carry [handguns]. I don’t carry, but under the city ordinance and the state law, we have the right to carry a concealed weapon.
Q: Do you think the entire state should pass that law?
A: Absolutely not.
Q: Why not? If it’s OK for aldermen, why not the general public.
A: An alderman is a sworn peace officer, and we have to go through 40 hours training in order to obtain the license. I’ve even taken 20 hours additional training. [Emphasis added.]
“You gotta remember, I didn’t own anything [guns] prior to being an alderman,” he said. “As alderman, I still have the right, because I’m a sworn officer.”
But state law and rules were changed in the late 1990s to require aldermen to undergo 400 hours of training — just like police officers — to become “conservators of the peace.” Beale’s campaign acknowledged the alderman never took that training, but Beale said he now has a Chicago firearms permit. [Emphasis added.]
Oops.
* Related…
* Where Rahm Emanuel Stands On 2nd District Race: Insiders also note Emanuel is in a tight spot with Ald. Anthony Beale being a leading candidate. Emanuel does not want to be perceived as turning on one of his alderman, especially with Ald. Carrie Austin, Michelle Harris and John Pope all supporting Beale.
* Bloomberg super PAC targets Jackson’s former seat - Nearly $3 million spent by outside groups dwarfs candidates
