Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY: This just in…
Next Post: Advertisers are all in the news
Posted in:
* The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal suit challenging the state’s ban on concealed carry. From a press release…
“Every other state has some kind of regulatory scenario,” [SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb] noted. “Even in Wisconsin, where there is no concealed carry statute, the state attorney general has recognized that open carry is legal. Only Illinois makes it statutorily impossible for average private citizens to carry firearms for self-defense.
“Whether Illinois lawmakers like it or not,” he added, “the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is the law of the land. A complete prohibition simply does not pass constitutional muster. The state cannot stick it’s head in the sand and pretend this problem does not exist..”
* The lawsuit contends that the state’s “Unlawful Use of Weapons” statutes are unconstitutional because they “prohibit otherwise qualified private citizens from carrying handguns for the purpose of self-defense.” More…
Plaintiffs do not seek to establish how the State of Illinois should regulate the carry of handguns in public. For example, Plaintiffs do not seek to establish that the State should enact a licensing program, or any particular licensing program, nor do Plaintiffs contend that the State should in some other manner amend its laws.
Rather, Plaintiffs seek to establish that the recognition and incorporation of the Second Amendment – the right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation – renders the State’s present regulatory choice unconstitutional. Whatever the contours of a constitutional scheme might be, the Second Amendment renders a ban on carrying guns impermissible.
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, May 13, 11 @ 11:44 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY: This just in…
Next Post: Advertisers are all in the news
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
It will be interesting to see this work through the system…
Comment by OneMan Friday, May 13, 11 @ 11:53 am
It’s a novel way to solve the problem. I hope it prevails in court. Clearly the laws as written in IL are doing little to curb gun violence.
Comment by How Ironic Friday, May 13, 11 @ 11:55 am
In the case that every proponent of conceal and carry like to bring up, District of Columbia v. Heller: in the majority decision of that case, Justice Scalia writes, “The Second Amendment right is not unlimited…It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”
Comment by Seriously??? Friday, May 13, 11 @ 12:07 pm
I’m not a lawyer, but it looks to me like the plaintiffs lack standing to file this suit. They are suing because they’d like to carry firearms but there is no law that allows them to do so.
I’d like to commute to work by jetpack, but there isn’t a law that would allow me to do so. Can I sue to get Illinois to regulate jetpack use?
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, May 13, 11 @ 12:14 pm
“For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”
Exactly, meaning not that there is no right to carry.
Meaning that you cannot have a blanket ban on carry.
Meaning that perhaps the good people of Illinois get open carry by a court ruling. I’ll take that.
Meaning that if the legislature and the Governor don’t want to see open carry, they might welcome concealed.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Friday, May 13, 11 @ 12:16 pm
Someone needs to strap on a handgun (open carry) and walk down the street and get arrested. Then, they will definitely have standing.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, May 13, 11 @ 12:23 pm
It will be interesting to see if this helps to push a few more legislators to adopt HB148 so that they maintain some level of control over how this plays out.
Comment by tak1885 Friday, May 13, 11 @ 12:23 pm
@47th:
>>>>They are suing because they’d like to carry firearms but there is no law that allows them to do so.
They are suing because they’d like to/need to carry firearms but there is no legal means to do so, it is very much outlawed, there is no flavor of violation that is not a felony.
Is it against the law to fly with a jet pack in Illinois?
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Friday, May 13, 11 @ 12:27 pm
John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt-
I’m not sure jet packs are against Illinois law, but I’m sure the FAA has something to say about it. But then again, Illinois might require that jet packs be fueled with ethanol.
Comment by John Bambenek Friday, May 13, 11 @ 12:31 pm
Now if the courts rule in the plaintiff’s favor will the Republicans cry out over activist judges?
Comment by Matt Friday, May 13, 11 @ 12:34 pm
Jetpack would likely fall under the ultralight rules, not sure what they are now but before no licence was required.
Comment by OneMan Friday, May 13, 11 @ 12:36 pm
and before we get toooooo far down jetpack lane,
we are talking about carrying firearms, that’s the “bear” part in keep and bear arms.
The “keep” part has been defined, and while the Supremes did not rule on “bear”, and they did not rule it out. Yes, Scalia remarked on “concealed”.
There is no general federal law against “concealed carry” or “open carry”, but there are federal laws/regulations against bringing weapons into a few different venues.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Friday, May 13, 11 @ 12:43 pm
Just got back from traveling the South for a couple of weeks. It was a reminder that both open and concealed carry is allowed everywhere but here. I find it ironic / funny that Illinois will probably end up with open carry as a result of “activist” judges … and that “activist” judges are how a lot of liberal groups try to get their agendas when they can’t get it in the legislature. Maybe the conservatives are learning to use the liberal playbook …
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Friday, May 13, 11 @ 12:48 pm
J3S, the point about jetpacks was to demonstrate that this suit is arguing a hypothetical point. Until someone gets arrested for UUW, the plaintiffs lack standing.
Courts rule on the laws in specific cases, not based on hypotethical scenarios. Until the Second Amendment Foundation can demonstrate that UUW laws infringe on someone’s constitutional rights, they have no standing to ask a court to toss the statutes.
As PcK points out, some poor soul is going to have to get arrested before you’ll get a court to make the ruling you hope it will make.
If I get arrested landng my jetpack on Michigan Avenue, then I can challenge the FAA and the City laws. Until then, the courts aren’t going to grant me permission to fly around town like George Jetson.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, May 13, 11 @ 12:58 pm
Matt,
Using the clear, expressed language of the Constitution to protect/expand specifically enumerated Rights is not activism, it is what judges are supposed to do. Activism is “finding” a right in some vaguely written amendment.
Comment by grand old partisan Friday, May 13, 11 @ 1:10 pm
Enforcing the United States Constitution is not activism..it is the whole point of SCOTUS.
Comment by tak1885 Friday, May 13, 11 @ 1:11 pm
===in some vaguely written amendment. ===
Compare the 2nd to the 1st amendments.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 13, 11 @ 1:21 pm
One way or another, this is where the issue belongs.
It’s always been a disconnect to me that folks were pushing enactment of a state law to get what they claimed were their rights under the U.S. Constitution. Pick a lane, and this is probably the right one.
The American historical experience since 1789 has been that state and local governments have the ability to permit, limit or bar firearms in the public square.
But if proponents think conceal carry is a 2nd Amendment right, then throw the long ball. A decision sure would clear the air.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, May 13, 11 @ 1:31 pm
1Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
2A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The structure of the two seem very similar to me, each have multiple clauses, separated by commas. Also, both are very specific to their provisions.
Comment by tak1885 Friday, May 13, 11 @ 1:32 pm
===The structure of the two seem very similar to me,===
C’mon, there is no preamble in the 1st.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 13, 11 @ 1:41 pm
Regarding standing, when you are talking about a fundamental constitutional right, threat of arrest for doing some is sufficient to establish standing.
Was Otis McDonald arrested for having a gun in his house to create standing for McDonald v. Chicago (another SAF victory)? No! He had a right to have a handgun in his home, the local law stopped him from doing that and he sued. No arrest is necessary for standing.
Comment by A Lawyer Friday, May 13, 11 @ 1:43 pm
@47th Ward - Friday, May 13, 11 @ 12:14 pm:
“I’m not a lawyer, but it looks to me like the plaintiffs lack standing to file this suit. They are suing because they’d like to carry firearms but there is no law that allows them to do so.
I’d like to commute to work by jetpack, but there isn’t a law that would allow me to do so. Can I sue to get Illinois to regulate jetpack use?”
Clever analogy, but it’s incorrect. Plaintiffs have standing. They are challenging on the basis that an inherent “natural” right they possess (to bear arms) is criminalized by Illinois law. Plaintiffs suffer harm due to Illinois’ prohibitive law. They are not challenging Illinois’ lack of allowance to for the bearing of arms … they are challenging because Illinois prohibits (by threat of criminal penalty) the right to bear arms.
Plaintiffs will ultimately prevail based on the precedent set by Heller (”bear” means to carry), and because McDonald incorporated the constitutional guarantee of the right to bear arms against the states (Illinois is a state).
Comment by Kentucky Yankee Friday, May 13, 11 @ 1:44 pm
===Regarding standing, when you are talking about a fundamental constitutional right, threat of arrest for doing some is sufficient to establish standing.===
You mean like the laws against things like screaming “Fire!” in a crowded theater?
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 13, 11 @ 1:45 pm
The 1st has 2 clauses, freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The 2nd also has 2 clauses, State’s right to a militia and individual right to bear arms. In both, the clauses are exclusive of each other.
Comment by tak1885 Friday, May 13, 11 @ 1:49 pm
Rich:
Here is the text of the complaint. It is germane to this discussion. Apologies if posting this link is inappropriate.
http://saf.org/legal.action/il.carry/ILcomplaint.pdf
Comment by Kentucky Yankee Friday, May 13, 11 @ 1:51 pm
The way it looks, the State of Illinois would have been better off passing the Concealed Carry Bill.
It’s going to be funny to see the look on Daley’s and Jet pack man’s face when people are openly carrying in front of City Hall and in the 47th ward.
Comment by Benny Friday, May 13, 11 @ 1:53 pm
===You mean like the laws against things like screaming “Fire!” in a crowded theater?===
In regard to 1st amendment guarantees, I’ve often seen reference to “screaming FIRE in a crowded theatre”, but don’t understand its context here.
Comment by Kentucky Yankee Friday, May 13, 11 @ 1:54 pm
in the filing, did you notice that it mistakenly refers to “Attorney General Keen” in the second sentence of the defendants part? Just thought I’d point out the error I saw.
Comment by tak1885 Friday, May 13, 11 @ 1:57 pm
KY, then you’re kinda daft. No offense, man. But if you can’t see that public safety restrictions can be placed on fundamental rights, then you are either being disingenuous or you are daft.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:01 pm
Also, KY, the link to the complaint is posted at the top. Twice. So, maybe you are kinda daft.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:02 pm
What if you scream “Fire” while on the sidewalk, where it’s not so crowded? How about in a park, in front of the firehouse, or while walking along the lakefront?
To quote the cop who pulled me over last week, “Where’s the fire?”
Comment by Benny Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:02 pm
Benny, there are specific laws for specific reasons. You appear to be daft as well.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:03 pm
Good, I got you thinking. What is different about the People of Illinois compared to the People of the other 49 States? Do we have a specific law because we are born different?
And why the name calling?
Comment by Benny Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:06 pm
Benny, by that logic, if there is no law in some other states banning the screaming of “fire” in a crowded theater then I should be able to do it in a state that does ban it?
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:08 pm
It is not illegal to tell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre if the theatre is indeed on fire.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:17 pm
Kinda daft. Thank you, Rich. No offense meant, I am sure. My apologies for double-posting the complaint (and not noticing your link to it above).
In the context of public safety restrictions on fundamental rights … interesting is the oft-mentioned prohibition on yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theatre. Indeed that is unlawful, except in the event of a fire. In that case, yelling “FIRE” is not only lawful, but may be crucial to public safety. Likewise, it is unlawful to discharge a firearm in a crowded theatre, expect in the event of someone threatening grave bodily injury or death.
We don’t cut out tongues or muzzle folks before they enter theatres, simply because they possess the physical ability to yell “FIRE” when there is no cause to do so. We don’t do so in part because that would be unworkable, and in part (and this is germane here) because it would prevent yelling “FIRE” in the event that fire actually broke out.
That would be kinda daft.
Comment by Kentucky Yankee Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:17 pm
Yes, if there is a fire in the theater.
Now, you are evading my questions. Were we born different in Illinois? What is the specific reason for the specific law banning the bearing of arms in Illinois?
Comment by Benny Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:18 pm
So, you’re saying that your gun is part of your body? That would be playing into the stereotype wouldn’t it? lol
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:18 pm
Screaming “fire” isn’t the only restriction on free speech. We have libel and slander laws too. For example, if I called Benny a no-good such-and-such, Benny might have grounds to sue me for damages. Free speech has limits too.
And speaking for myself Benny, I’d prefer you carry your firearm openly when you visit the 47th Ward. That way I can see you coming.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:19 pm
Yes, screaming “fire” is like crying “wolf” or making threats over the phone. While I may have grounds to sue Jetpackman, I may not prevail. We’ll let the courts decide, shall we?
What will you do when you see me coming? Will you try to infringe upon my rights, let me pass, or will you run away?
Comment by Benny Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:27 pm
Lol. Stereotype all you wish. I am saying that bearing arms is fundamental, as is speech. And I suggest that prohibiting firearm discharge in a theatre absent a serious threat is a reasonable restriction, as is prohibiting the yelling of “FIRE” absent an actual fire.
Comment by Kentucky Yankee Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:29 pm
47th Ward - This is an interesting discussion. I suspect there are reasonable and unreasonable analogies that might be drawn between the right to speech and the right to arms.
To simplify the way I understand it … the constitutionally permissible laws against speech prohibit it’s use is certain situations … such as when the use of that speech harms people without just cause. Likewise, there are constitutional laws against the use of arms … such as when use of such arms harms people without just cause. In other words, just as you need damned good reason to yell “FIRE” in a crowded theatre, you need damned good reason to shoot someone. But there is no argument that situations can (or may) exist to justify both actions.
Comment by Kentucky Yankee Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:37 pm
I seem to remember that PeeWee Herman was arrested for baring his “firearm” in a theatre! Perhaps he should have gone to the Supreme Court for relief.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:42 pm
If he was, it wasn’t in Illinois!
Comment by Benny Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:51 pm
The First Amendment does protect the right “to petition government for a redress of grievances.” Which might suggest that petitioning gov’t for any other purpose would not be protected, if one were to take the narrow view Liberals like when it’s the Second Amendment.
Comment by reformer Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:54 pm
This will be an interesting case. It appears that the proponents weren’t bluffing. Based upon Heller, McDonald and lots of other cases working their way through the court systems or having already been ruled upon, I suspect that SAF will prevail.
Just as a point of curiousity during these dire financial times, after millions of dollars are spent taking the cases through the courts, who pays? Did DC have to pay Guru’s attorney fees after Heller? Did Chicago after McDonald? If so, is that a proper use of tax funds or an example of blatant mismanagement of public funds by those Mayors? Since it is so blatant (in my opinion), do the residents of those locales have any recourse upon the politicians for willfully wasting their funds?
Comment by Logic not emotion Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:55 pm
It looks like the NRA just filed their own lawsuit too!
Comment by Benny Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:56 pm
If “public safety” is part of the discussion, how is having unarmed citizens at the mercy of armed felons permissable? I look forward to the SAFs court challenge.
Comment by G Whiz Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:56 pm
- Logic not emotion - Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:55 pm:
” is that a proper use of tax funds or an example of blatant mismanagement of public funds by those Mayors? Since it is so blatant (in my opinion), do the residents of those locales have any recourse upon the politicians for willfully wasting their funds?”
YES. They can refuse to re-elect them at the next ballot.
Comment by G Whiz Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:59 pm
Add ISRA to the NRA lawsuit.
Comment by Benny Friday, May 13, 11 @ 2:59 pm
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=15127
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:00 pm
SAF & NRA both. I note that the NRA suit has a great lead plaintiff too…
“Mary Shepard is an Illinois resident and a trained gun owner with no criminal record, who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun in two other states. Because Illinois remains the only state that completely prohibits all law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home, Mary Shepard also became a crime victim. While working as the treasurer of her church, Mrs. Shepard and an 83-year-old co-worker were viciously attacked and beaten by a six-foot-three-inch, 245-pound man with a violent past and a criminal record. Mrs. Shepard and her co-worker were lucky to survive, as each of them suffered major injuries to the head, neck and upper body. Mrs. Shepard’s injuries required extensive surgery and physical therapy.”
“Mary Shepard isn’t just a victim of the violent criminal who attacked her,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “She is also a victim of anti self-defense activists in the Illinois legislature who have consistently refused to recognize that good people have the right to protect themselves when they go about their everyday business. We’re pleased that the legislature has come closer this year than ever before to changing the law, but close isn’t good enough for Mary Shepard and the thousands of other Illinois residents who are prohibited by statute from defending themselves outside the home.”
Comment by Logic not emotion Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:03 pm
Rich, what of the preamble? That’s now settled law. The preamble of the 2nd operates like other preambles in other laws written back in the same era and also like current laws such as federal copyright laws.
Just as one has the right, and arguably the duty, to yell ‘fire’ in a theater if there is a fire, one has the right to self-defense if attacked in a theater or anywhere else.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:13 pm
- Seriously??? - Friday, May 13, 11 @ 12:07 pm:
In the case that every proponent of conceal and carry like to bring up, District of Columbia v. Heller: in the majority decision of that case, Justice Scalia writes, “The Second Amendment right is not unlimited…It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”
The statement by Scalia is being taken out of context, as was explained a week or so ago by people here on CapitolFax. Scalia said there was indeed a right to bear arms, but if the locality wanted to ban concealed carry, that’s okay. And if the locality wanted to ban open carry they can do that. What they couldn’t ban was carrying a weapon, that is constitutionally protected. So Illinois must choose one or the other, not both.
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:23 pm
Mary Shepherd does make a great plaintiff.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:25 pm
CDC report stating the large cities, inner cities in particular, experience the highest murder rates by firearms in the country. The rates are highest among male children and teens. How to prevent this: limit the number of guns that are accessible to these youths (among other measures that have been proven).
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/managing-your-healthcare/research/articles/2011/05/12/us-murder-toll-from-guns-highest-in-big-cities-cdc
Comment by Seriously??? Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:27 pm
Firearms and crime rates really aren’t the CDC’s field of expertise, nor is politics.
Comment by tak1885 Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:31 pm
@Seriously???
Consider that the CDC might be wrong.
Also consider that even if they’re right, how come there’s no reduction in crime where firearms are hard to come by legally?
Also consider that even if they’re right, that does not justify prior restraint on my right to defend myself, with the best means possible. It does not justify infringement of my right to bear arms.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:33 pm
But violence prevention and public safety are. But I guess a silly thing like trying to protect certain populations from increased levels of violence and murder aren’t in the best interest of “politics”. How silly of me.
Comment by Seriously??? Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:33 pm
Seriously??? You like the anti-gunners either choose to ignore the relevent parts of the Heller opinion or selectively pick and choose the parts you want to quote.
The Second Amendment, is not an unlimited right. None of them are. And I think we can agree that where Scalia said “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”
its easy to see where there is not a right to walk down the street with a bazooka. And that the Government can put restrictions on weapons like they have in the NFA, those over 50 cal, full autos, sawed off shotguns and the like.
But Heller spoke directly to “bearing” arms
“At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.
From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment”
the Court went on to define keep and Bear:
“c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”16″
the court spent over 10 pages talking about to “bear” or carrying. and rebuked the attempt my the dissent that it only applied to the milita. Start on about page 7 and read through page 21. All of that is dedicated to the arguement being brought in these two lawsuits.
And as for the quote about “For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues”
yes concealed carry bans were up held, becuase they had the right to carry openly. There was a right to carry. And the Court in referanceing this cited State v Reid. If you had just read a couple of more pages from pg 54 where your quote comes from to page 57 where Scalia wrote:
Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District’s handgun ban. And some of those few have been struck down. In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a
prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the
state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns. See also State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840) (“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).
Heller shows that there must be some way to carry available under the rights recognised by the Second Amendment. Illinois has none. We are the only state like it. And we don’t think it will stand. Since the legislature didn’t act, we are now in court.
Comment by Todd Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:35 pm
@ Seriously
What’s your point exactly? Guns have been illegal in Chicago for 20 years or so. I don’t think that gun crimes have diminished. Do you?
Limiting guns only results in law abiding citizens being deprived of a way of defending themselves. Currently it appears the criminals are not really bothered by ‘more’ gun laws.
Comment by How Ironic Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:35 pm
I was more hinting towards the notion that the CDC should not be making claims that less guns will mean less violence, especially since the data does not prove that or even hint towards that. In making a statement without basis in fact, they are playing politics.
Comment by tak1885 Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:36 pm
Seriously???: Yep. The anti groups constantly mention these youth who are injured by guns. They neglect to mention that many of these youth are gang members fighting over drugs and turf.
Comment by Logic not emotion Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:37 pm
We ban smoking in public places in order to protect people from second hand smoke. How is banning people from walking the streets with loaded weapons to protect others different? It’s OK to kill people quickly with a bullet, but not OK to kill them slowly by way of giving them cancer?
Comment by Seriously??? Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:37 pm
tak1885, If you read the article that’s not what they are saying. They discuss a variety of ways that violence in these areas can be reduced, but they all have to work in tandem. Reducing the number of guns on the street is simply one piece of the solution.
Comment by Seriously??? Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:39 pm
I don’t agree with the smoking ban, but that’s besides the point. Smoking puts smoke in the air, carrying a gun does not put bullets in the air.
Comment by tak1885 Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:39 pm
I admit I did not read the article, I was more commenting on your synopsis.
Comment by tak1885 Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:40 pm
Logic not emotion, who exactly do you think these gang members are killing? Other kids…but I guess that’s OK. Do you want to start arming elementary students so they can protect themselves from gang drive bys?
Comment by Seriously??? Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:40 pm
Ok, assuming you achieve your ‘gun-free’ utopia, how could Mary Shepherd defend herself from the human animal that beat her nearly to death?
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:41 pm
tak1885, But bullets are flying aren’t they? How many times in a week do you see stories about someone getting shot and killed. And how often are those kids who just happened to get caught in the crossfire?
Comment by Seriously??? Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:42 pm
not elementary kids, of course, but perhaps a teacher, principal, or other adult staffer? It takes a village…
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:46 pm
Logic not emotion, I am also taking your comment, “They neglect to mention that many of these youth are gang members fighting over drugs and turf” as an indication that you are fine with people being killed if they are in a gang or breaking the law. So you’re OK with the large numbers of deaths in inner cities if you think it’s going to somehow help to solve the gang problem?
Comment by Seriously??? Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:46 pm
I believe they don’t have standing. You can’t force the Supreme Ct to allow you to carry guns based on the fact other states allow this. If so, why couldn’t gays demand marriage rights in this state because other states have passed laws allowing it?
Comment by Wensicia Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:49 pm
You can still bring your cigarettes with you when you visit public places. Concealed or not.
Comment by Benny Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:50 pm
LOL, Wensicia! They haven’t been demanding marriage rights in Illinois?
Comment by Benny Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:54 pm
Seriously,
Smoking is not mentioned in the Constitution. Furthermore, some would argue that smoking bans are not an enumerated power in the Federal Constitution, nor in the States Constitutions, and is therefore an infringement on the rights of individuals to smoke.
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:55 pm
- Seriously??? - Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:46 pm:
“Logic not emotion, I am also taking your comment, “They neglect to mention that many of these youth are gang members fighting over drugs and turf” as an indication that you are fine with people being killed if they are in a gang or breaking the law. So you’re OK with the large numbers of deaths in inner cities if you think it’s going to somehow help to solve the gang problem?”
Quite frankly, it is the act of killing which should be outlawed, as it rightfully is. Not the method of killing. Your logic leads to banning knives, ropes, fists and other methods and tools of harming another.
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, May 13, 11 @ 3:58 pm
Yeesh.
Since 1789, states and local governments have permitted, limited or barred conceal carry. Those bars and limitations have been upheld by the courts, as Scalia pointed out.
This stuff that you’ve all been deprived of your “rights” since 1789 is just weird. You think the question maybe has come up before, in 200 plus years?
That nonsense probably works gangbusters for fundraising among the true believers, but like the man said, you can fool some of the people all of the time…..
If proponents think tjey have the goods in the courts, go for it. It would prevent a lot of nonsense on the state level, which was a dopey arena to be fighting in anyway if the “rights” were granted by the U.S. Constitution in 1789.
For all you Federalist Society, alleged “conservatives,” you might want to google Judge Posner’s viewpoints on Scalia and Heller. He peels the paint off the wall.
But when it goes your way, well, that’s different…
Comment by wordslinger Friday, May 13, 11 @ 4:24 pm
I’ll take open carry or concealed carry, either way it doesn’t matter to me.
For Todd and anyone else in the know, how confident are you that this suit will be successful? And if so how will open carry be regulated?
According to this:
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/wisconsin.pdf
To me it looks like Wisconsin doesn’t even require permits or safety courses. Looks like the anti gun folks should of taken the reasonable bill that was HB148 a little more seriously. Because to me open carry looks extremely less restrictive than what was offered in that bill. Of course I’m not a legal expert and am making some assumptions that might not be true. Can anyone verify?
Comment by Farker Friday, May 13, 11 @ 4:35 pm
I have to say this, with all the rhetoric about “loaded” guns, as though that makes them more scary. I have a Glock 19 and a Kahr MK9. Both have multiple safety systems that make it impossible for a round in the chamber to be fired unless the trigger is pulled. A responsible gun owner, especially one trained as mandated by the text of HB148, would carry their loaded handgun in a holster, which protects the trigger from being unintentionally actuated. Loaded or unloaded anyone who thinks about safety can easily carry safely and the requirements of HB148 will assure that licensed carriers will be safe carriers; there are consequences for what we in the gun community call negligent discharges.
Comment by Josh in Champaign Friday, May 13, 11 @ 4:41 pm
–It’s going to be funny to see the look on Daley’s and Jet pack man’s face when people are openly carrying in front of City Hall and in the 47th ward.–
Why’s that? And why would they do that?
Benny, you are a poster boy as to why conceal carry legislation doesn’t pass in Illinois. Comments like yours are worth 10 votes on the fence and among suburban moms in the suburbs.
Keep up the good work. Couldn’t do it without you.
Good luck in court.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, May 13, 11 @ 4:58 pm