Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition and a campaign roundup
Next Post: Cullerton: Lower pension funding target to 80 percent
Posted in:
* Gun-owner rights supporters thought they had a shot at winning this federal case. No such luck so far…
U.S. Judge Sue Myerscough wrote in an opinion issued Friday that the Second Amendment is narrow and merely gives citizens the right to possess lawful firearms in the home.
Four citizens and the Second Amendment Foundation Inc. and Illinois Carry — both pro-gun lobbying groups — filed suit in May 2011. They argued that Illinois laws that prohibit people from carrying guns in public, whether concealed or not, violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Myerscough, however, found no constitutional problem with the state laws.
“The United States Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit (Appellate Court) have recognized only a Second Amendment core individual right to bear arms inside the home,” Myerscough said in her ruling. “Further, even if this court recognized a Second Amendment right to bear arms outside of the home and an interference with that right, the statutes nonetheless survive constitutional scrutiny.”
* An appeal is already in the works. From a press release…
In her ruling, Judge Meyerscough stated, “This Court finds that the Illinois ‘Unlawful Use of Weapons’ and ‘Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon’ statutes do not violate Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit have recognized only a Second Amendment core individual right to bear arms inside the home. Further, even if this Court recognized a Second Amendment right to bear arms outside of the home and an interference with that right, the statutes nonetheless survive constitutional scrutiny.”
In response, [Second Amendment Foundation] founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb suggested the judge’s ruling defies common sense.
“We look forward to winning this important case on appeal even if it means going back to the United States Supreme Court for a third time,” Gottlieb stated. “The Second Amendment does not say, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except outside your home or that it only applies inside your house. We don’t check our constitutional rights at the front door.”
Judge Myerscough denied SAF and its co-plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against two laws in Illinois that make it a crime to carry loaded firearms outside the home for personal protection. Instead, she supported the state’s motion to dismiss the case.
Discuss, but keep your tempers cool, please. Let’s not let this get outta hand. Also, as usual, no drive-by comments and bumper-sticker slogans. Elevate yourselves or go somewhere else.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 3:47 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition and a campaign roundup
Next Post: Cullerton: Lower pension funding target to 80 percent
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Yes, it does defy common sense. I can assume the other 49 states that have some sort of right to carry/concealed carry must be mistaken? Thank you Judge Myerscough for showing Illinois the the way.
Comment by MS Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 4:36 am
MS, what don’t you get?
No one’s ever contended that a state can’t pass a law allowing conceal-carry. The judge ruled that it’s not a 2nd Amendment right, as it has not been in U.S. history up to now.
And as someone who cites those “49 other states” other than Illinois, you know those laws range from no-permit needed, to shall issue, to may issue, to virtual bans.
If it’s a 2nd Amendment right, there should be a national standard, don’t you think?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 6:06 am
“If it’s a 2nd Amendment right, there should be a national standard, don’t you think?”
Well Word, that’s the whole point of this. To take the case to the SC and get a ‘national’ ruling.
Comment by Mary Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 6:24 am
If I might add the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent remarks on concealed carry, which are not entirely clear. This was written by Justice Scalia, writing for the majority in DC v. Heller:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. [citation omitted] For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. [citation omitted] Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
It will be interesting to see how the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals balances this recognition of a place for the regulation of firearms with the equally important equal protection issue that is behind wordslinger’s question:
==If it’s a 2nd Amendment right, there should be a national standard, don’t you think?==
Comment by Agricola Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 6:46 am
I can’t imagine the Bush Twins comment lasting once Rich wakes up.
Comment by Kevin Highland Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 7:34 am
Imposing restrictions on where you cannot carry a weapon isn’t the same as restricting weapons to just your home. They still have a case in my opinion.
Comment by Wensicia Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 8:04 am
This is just one step in a process. I don’t know that anyone that is familiar with Judge Myerscough expected much different. Not saying that to be negative to her or her judicial skills.
On the Scalia quote, pointing out a few restrictions, such as a government building, is alot different than saying you can only exercise a constitutional right in your own house.
We really won’t know much until this works up to the Supreme Court.
Comment by More Courage Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 8:26 am
I find it flawed that the judge would only allow a homeowner constitutional rights.
I would imagine that if a person lost their home, and was living on the street, that person would have a greater need for protection than a person behind a locked door.
Homeless people should not be forced to give up a constitution right just because they can not afford homeownership.
If this ruling is to sustain challenge all the way through the supreme court, I think it would be fair to file a suit to return voting rights to
only people that own property.
Comment by Jade_rabbit Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 8:45 am
I am not a attorney by any stretch but this
“Further, even if this court recognized a Second Amendment right to bear arms outside of the home and an interference with that right, the statutes nonetheless survive constitutional scrutiny.”
Does not seem logical to me. Is she saying that even if there is a right to open and/or concealed carry the state laws that as they exist are fine?
Don’t get that one at all, if there was/is a right to do so can the state still legislate so for all practical reasons you can’t? Am I missing something about current state law?
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 8:48 am
So first Myerscough rules in favor of Quinn against the union raises and now she supports his position on guns. It probably has very little to do with her daughter working in the Gov’s legislative office.
Comment by Spliff Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 8:53 am
Does anyone else find it ironic that the crowd that perpetually complains about perceived judicial activism are the same people who repeatedly try to use the judicial system to do an end run around the legislative branch to get what they want?
Comment by TwoFeetThick Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 8:57 am
@OneMan -
I think what she’s opining is that the State’s rationalle in banning concealed weapons in public is allowable defense under the Second Amendment.
That rationale defense is what allows states to establish “reasonable” restrictions on conceal carry that result in de facto bans.
As a side point:
I note with irony that conservatives argue that weapons proliferation supports a more civil society yet we should imvade Iran before they get the bomb.
The argument that freedoms inside the home extend to the public must make alot of nudists happy. I hope the ACLU files an amicus.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 8:59 am
when in doubt, consult Scalia. His comments, including those quoted above, should be the basis of understanding for firearms issues and frankly, should please both sides of the squabble. basically, he said that things have been and can be regulated. I think that’s what Myerscough decided.
Comment by amalia Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 9:03 am
===If it’s a 2nd Amendment right, there should be a national standard, don’t you think?
The US Constitution provides a floor for those rights contained within it. States are generally free to expand upon those rights as long as they are not in conflict with other rights the US Constitution protects. IOW, there is a national standard for the floor on gun rights, however that doesn’t mean there is a right to conceal carry or that states only have to abide by the minimum right if they wish to provide citizens greater latitude.
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 9:06 am
Very sound reasoning. Reasonable time/ manner/place restrictions are legal even for a Constitutional right.
Comment by Nohopeforillinois Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 9:09 am
@ Bush Twins 6:48 am,
=The only people who are passionate about conceal and carry are those who lack the mental capacity to own a gun in the first place=
I’m not sure that would fit on a bumper sticker - too wordy.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 9:11 am
Some light reading. Here is the opinion:
http://www.ilcd.uscourts.gov/search/Myerscough/Moore%20v%20Madigan_Prelim%20Inj_Opinion_Final.pdf
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 9:35 am
Reading the opinion, it does seem persuasive.
The core of the problem is that Heller on its face limited the right to homes, and further that the 7th Circuit did the same. As a District Court judge, she’s obligated to follow that precedent.
People may not like the result, but given the law it really was the only decision that could be reached.
Nothing of course prevents Illinois from granting broader rights than those granted by the Constitution. Hopefully Todd and friends will be able to convince some of the Chicago Dems that there is merit to his position. His problem is complicated of course by the fact that so many on his side seem extreme and they frankly scare the heck out of the moderates. If he can put a lid on them, he’s got a chance.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 9:45 am
“The Second Amendment does not say, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except outside your home or that it only applies inside your house. We don’t check our constitutional rights at the front door.”
It can’t be described better than that.
Comment by Same as it ever was Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 9:49 am
This litigation is expensive and time consuming but necessary to get some closure on this issue. I predict this will be overturned.
Comment by Turn Your Head And Meyers Cough Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 9:53 am
@Turn your head
I wouldn’t be so sure that this will be overturned if this goes up to the Supreme Court. Most of the Court’s conservatives are generally sympathetic to arguments about letting legislatures answer these type of questions and this is a significantly different issue from a whole-sale ban on handguns.
Also, if you look at some of the Court’s decisions in other areas (such as the 4th Amdt.), your rights in the home are practically sacrosanct. It’s entirely possible that the line is set at allowing regulation outside the home.
Comment by chuddery Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 9:59 am
The 4th Amendment restricts actions by the government.
The 1st and 2nd Amendments speak to rights of the individual. 1st Amendment cases have never distinguished between words or actions taken inside or outside the home (to my knowledge).
Comment by Turn Your Head And Meyers Cough Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 10:04 am
It is now 2012, a few years after the adoption of the Constitution. If it was so clear that people could run around the streets with guns some Court would have figured it out by now and said so clearly. The Constitution and the Amendments have been studied and argued since there adoption. I am constantly amazed at people who know the truth as it springs from original thought without any regard for the generation of Americans who have studied and discussed these issues.
Comment by Bigtwich Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 10:07 am
It would not surprise me if this ended up with concealed carry being fairly widely limitable (or even bannable) but the recognition of some degree of right to open carry
Comment by titan Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 10:11 am
Wish this opinion had gone the other way, but didn’t expect it to; US Supreme Court decision was somewhat ambiguous, but it did not say open carry and concealed carry was the law of the land.
Actually, I don’t see the Supreme Court accepting this as a case it will hear; they will probably just return it to the lower courts…
Just to clarify, Illinois law allows a person the right to have a firearm outside of your home for hunting, target practice, etc. You just can’t transport it loaded. As Skeeter said, Judge Myerscough was just repeating what the Supreme Court had said.
Personally I believe that there needs to be some clarification in Illinois as to what is actually permitted with “open carry”: it isn’t legal, but as some laws read, it isn’t banned either.
Comment by Downstate commissioner Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 10:13 am
First, parts of the 1st Amdt speak to the rights of individuals. The religion clauses in some ways restrict the actions of government.
I wasn’t trying to say that the 4th and 2nd Amdts are the same, merely that the Supreme Court has viewed the home as a much more difficult place to regulate and that you have a much tougher road if you address your regulation towards what people may do in their homes.
Comment by chuddery Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 10:15 am
–“The Second Amendment does not say, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except outside your home or that it only applies inside your house. We don’t check our constitutional rights at the front door.”
It can’t be described better than that.–
Well, you could post the actual text.
–A 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.–
Shortly after the Constitution was adopted, Congress passed a national uniform militia act that required white males to keep and maintain a firearm, enroll in the state militia and serve when called up (talk about a federal mandate).
Keep in mind, there was no large standing army at this time or even police forces. Maintaining the peace, quelling insurrection and confronting invasion were the roles of the militia.
In U.S. history, that didn’t, and has not, prevented local jurisdictions from regulating or even banning the carrying of firearms outside the home, outside of service in the militia.
http://constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 10:16 am
===1st Amendment cases have never distinguished between words or actions taken inside or outside the home===
See: Protest restrictions, lobbyist restrictions, shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, journalism protections, etc.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 10:37 am
This topic sure does make the commenters kooky.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 10:47 am
Well I also find it interesting that folks who feel the courts should rule to allow things that traditionally were against the law or up to legislatures to regulate when they fit their world view are fine but when it comes to guns they are comfortable with the most restrictive view available.
Sorry but in general people like the courts when they rule their way, and consider them activist when they don’t. This is true in general for liberals and conservatives.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 10:56 am
@Judge Myerscough:
How exactly do I get the firearm into my home without carrying it at some point from the gun store to my residence? Do I establish my residence at the point of purchase?
Maybe the State of Illinois could publish maps of approved routes where it is legal to transport a weapon outside of the home while you are en route to your home.
I am not predicting an outright reversal of this entire decision, but this problematic judicial opinion is going to have to be clarified or modified.
Comment by Esquire Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 11:08 am
Esquire, it’s not about transporting a gun home. It’s about using a gun for self-protection in public.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 11:21 am
===In U.S. history, that didn’t, and has not, prevented local jurisdictions from regulating or even banning the carrying of firearms outside the home, outside of service in the militia.
There’s even a lot of room in between ban in public and conceal carry all of the time. You might be required to keep your gun unloaded while transporting, but then allowed to use it at different locations for hunting, practicing, or just plain having fun.
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 11:22 am
While I disagree with her conclusion, after reading it, I can she how she got there. It didn’t break any new ground and was the “safe” ruling.
Although identifying it as legal, she pretty much placed zero weight on the fact that Illinois citizens can and do legally open carry on their property outside their home … so the right doesn’t necessarily end at the door.
The other, I think more persuasive issue, is the fact Illinois does allow concealed carry for former law enforcement. That didn’t get an airing as far as I can tell. So the contention of the right ending at the door isn’t absolute; some people are allowed concealed carry in Illinois … the question is not if but who gets to?
I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat it: once the various Illinois 2A cases in process eventually reach DC, I think SCOTUS will have to address the issue of open or concealed carry outside the home. If that goes as I expect (permitted with some regulation), Illinois is going to be forced to allow some form of carry for the general public.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 11:31 am
==So the contention of the right ending at the door isn’t absolute; some people are allowed concealed carry in Illinois … the question is not if but who gets to?==
I don’t really get why this matters. The question is what the government can regulate. If the 2nd Amdt right extends to the home then it doesn’t matter if the legislature extends extra rights to other people.
Comment by chuddery Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 11:36 am
Do conservatives believe in state’s rights, or don’t they?
Violent crime is almost always a state issue, not a federal one, so why can’t they just let the states settle this one and mobilize a political movement to get open/concealed carry through the ballot box to change the Illinois criminal statutes on unlawful use of weapons.
If SCOTUS steps in the thicket from on high in D.C. to invalidate the efforts of Illinois to establish its own gun regulation scheme and its own criminal statutes on use of guns, it may not just step on the state sovereignty of Illinois but all states and we’ll end up with ATF and the feds regulating gun statutes for Illinois which I think everyone would agree after “fast and furious” is not really a good idea.
Maybe I’m overreacting in worrying so much about how overboard SCOTUS will go here, but after the Citizens United debacle I just don’t trust the Court to limit itself to the facts of the case before them if they see an opportunity to get some long-sought conservative legislative policy on the books.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 11:43 am
I wish I could understand the fanatical virtually religious obsession w/ guns and such things as concealed carry. It comes across as the same vehemence as messianic evangelicals or Islam or the like. People get passionate about political issues, but this stuff is out of the ball park.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 12:30 pm
Article 1, SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 12:32 pm
Thank you “Huh” for quoting the illinois Constitution. I am an avid shooter myself, but I think the state and local jurisdictions clearly have “police power” to regulate cars, booze, fireworks, guns, etc. in the interest of public safety. The Constitution says we have a right to keep and bear arms, and that individual right has been afirmed by the courts. For that reason, Chicago’s outright ban on ownership of fireamrs was clearly a violation of both state and federal law. However, an ordinance requiring a weapon to be carried cased and unloaded on a public street can’t be construed as a ban. It merely regulates one aspect of how that weapon can be used in the interest of public safety, and to me seems clearly within the realm of reasonable police power. Anyone who think we all need to run around with a loaded .45 on our hip is just plain nuts. Wyatt Earp didn’t even allow that in Dadge City!
Comment by Skirmisher Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 1:05 pm
hisgirlfriday,
SCOTUS won’t overreach. Previous decisions have been narrowly defined … maybe too narrowly or we wouldn’t be back at this point. If SCOTUS can find a way to duck taking the Illinois 2A cases, they will. If they do take a case, any ruling will be as narrowly defined as they can within the scope of the question.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 1:08 pm
chuddery,
It matters because the judge said there was NO right. The fact that retired law enforcement can belies that. Yes, current Illinois is based on a regulation, not interpreted as a constitutional right. But, as Huh? @ 12:32 pointed out, the Illinois Constitution has the same basic phrase as the Second Amendment.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 1:13 pm
Actually, if the Illinois Const. phrase were the 2nd Amend, we wouldn’t even have this problem. The Illinois laws are an exercise of the police power of the state, badda boom badda bing.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 1:56 pm
Good point Gumby. The IL language is actually more restrictive than US. May have to look back to the 1970 discussions to see if it was addressed and what was their intent …
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 2:33 pm
I think I’d be fine with a system that allowed conceal carry but required all handgun owners to have mandatory minimum liability insurance for damage, injury or death caused by their firearm.
Just as we do for automobiles.
If you want to store your handgun loaded and unlocked in your nightstand, the Supreme Court says you can. But I havent read anyone arguing that society should bear the cost if your kid shoots himself, you shoot the fedex man, or your weapon is used in a crime.
I think the market will sort this out pretty if we have strict enforcement of an insurance provision.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 2:42 pm
Heller does NOT limit the defensive use of a handgun, or any other firearm to the home. If we’re gonna quote “Heller”, then let’s look at another quote: From the Syllabus, page 1:
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
It doesn’t say ONLY within the home. Just that self-defense within the home is an example (such as) of “traditionally lawful purposes”.
Then Justice Alito confirms that in McDonald on page 33 of the opinion, under the Roman numberal IV:
Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and beararms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defensewithin the home.
Again, not ONLY in the home, but most notably so. In neither of the opinions will you find any place that the majority opinion refers to the Second Amendment as applying ONLY to the home. That’s a misconception that has been promulgated by those that wish it to be so.
Comment by TimB Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 2:43 pm
Adding, the Heller complaint only dealt with the D.C. law that forbid an operational firearm in the home to use for defense. That was what the lawsuit asked for, so that is what the court addressed. As someone else has said, very narrow, very to the point. But, did not rule out other locations by saying only in the home or strictly in the home.
Comment by TimB Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 2:46 pm
Tim,
The syllabus is not actually part of the opinion.
Alito is not the majority’s opinion.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 2:48 pm
I beleive that Alito wrote the opinion of the court in McDonald.
I think that the syllabus is to give a description of the decision, the highlights so to speak. So, techncally, it’s not the specific words of the opinion, but I’m betting that if the justices intended that the decision deal ONLY with the home, they would have put it in the syllabus. If the syllabus does not accurately represent the decision, then why is it there?
Comment by TimB Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 3:01 pm
States rights still have to be within the framework of the Constitution. Therefore SCOTUS rightfully can review if a State is attempting to abbrige a constitutional right.
I always find it funny that the standard knee jerk reaction is to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. As I see it a criminal
with a weapon is not exacly following the law . It makes little sense to burden lawful citizens with procedures when they are not part of the problem.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 3:10 pm
The syllabus is there for lawyers to use as a starting place for research. It is not part of the court’s opinion.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 3:13 pm
Whats that you have there….well its a bill that would allow people to carry a gun. Allow people to carry a gun…brilliant. How many states do that? Forty nine. What else you workin on…? Well there is a state called Illinois…..
Comment by Porter Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 3:13 pm
–Heller does NOT limit the defensive use of a handgun, or any other firearm to the home.–
Tell it to the judge. Then, pick a lane.
If it’s a fundamental 2nd Amendment right, clear out of the state capitols and make your case in Congress or the federal courts.
If it’s a state matter, get out of the federal courts and Congress and make your case in the state capitols.
Otherwise, it’s just shopping for results, not principle.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 3:20 pm
Word,
You assume all people who believe in the 2nd Amendment are states’ rights freaks.
That’s not the case.
A few of us liberals think that just as people should be allowed access to drugs (since we can’t blame all drug users because a few of them act like idiots) they should also be allowed access to guns (on a similar basis).
The fact that we may believe a right exists should not prevent us from also seeking legislation to protect that right.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 3:26 pm
==I always find it funny that the standard knee jerk reaction is to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. ==
I don’t find that funny at all. I’m against that.
What are you talking about, exactly?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 4:32 pm
YDD @ 2:42,
I’d have no problem with that. I already carry a $1M liability rider anyway to protect me if something happens on my rental property.
Right now you don’t have to have insurance or training to have a gun in the home; all you have to have is a “license” (ie, FOID card). Requiring insurance and some training (equivalent of CCW classes) would be reasonable requirements in my opinion. Might have to be careful about specifying the amount of liability insurance required so there is no disenfranchisement argument re the poor and the cost of the insurance.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 6:13 pm
Word @ 3:20,
If you are going to litigate, you have to start the case at the local level since you are arguing against some local rule. It gets to the federal level eventually …
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 6:18 pm
“Wyatt Earp didn’t even allow that in Dadge(sic) City!”
Yes, and a lot of those towns told black Americans not to let the sun set on them. The fact that civil rights were trampled on in the past is no justification for doing so in the present. BTW, you can carry a gun virtually anywhere in Illinois where it is not specifically prohibited e.g. schools, post offices, as long as it is cased and unloaded.
Comment by wishbone Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 6:56 pm
@RNUG -
See, we solved it all in a pinch.
I’m open to designating an insurer of last resort, like Blue Cross Blue Shield, but I’m betting the NRA will get into the liability insurance business pretty darn quick.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 6:59 pm
-…The IL language is actually more restrictive than US. May have to look back to the 1970 discussions to see if it was addressed and what was their intent …
The intent was to keep the black man unarmed.
Comment by Benny Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 8:53 pm
Wishbone,
I wasn’t going to bring it up but you are right; there are quite a few people walking around with unloaded guns and quickly accessible ammunition. There are also quite a few normally law abiding citizens carrying concealed without an Illinois permit. The guns are already out there in the public; most people just don’t realize it.
Assuming legally cased & unloaded carry, what people are actually talking about here is roughly a 5 to 15 second difference … the time to unzip a case, shove home a clip and rack the slide. Now that doesn’t address whether it is “legal” for you have a loaded weapon at that location … but a few seconds is what we are all arguing about; that and the legality of a loaded weapon at a given location. I won’t repeat the bumper sticker line …
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 9:07 pm
Benny,
That seems contradictory to all the civil rights language that was included … especially since gun control has often been used to suppress the civil rights of minorities.
John W
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Tuesday, Feb 7, 12 @ 9:09 pm
With enough persistence, Google came through with the entire proceedings, nearly 9,000 pages worth …
The original proposals:
Proposal No. 80. Introduced by Mr. Downen. Guarantees right of people to keep and bear arms. Deprives legislature of power to require registration of firearms. Prohibits taxation of firearms except as part of a general tax. Referred to the Committee on Bill of Rights.
Proposal No. 105. Introduced by Mr. Durr. Proposes
that bill of rights article of constitution provide that the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except for those who are mentally ill or are convicted felons. Referred to the Committee on Bill of Rights.
Draft language (had different numbers as it evolved, text remained constant):
SECTION xx. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police powers of the State, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
MINORITY PROPOSAL No. 1H (which was rejected)
Mr. Gertz, Mr. Weisberg and Mr. Raby presented Bill of Rights Minority proposal no. 1H which proposes that there be no provision in the constitution with respect to alleged right to bear arms to the Committee of the Whole.
The above is from the complete
Final Language (as adopted):
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, also dealing with the right to keep and bear arms, has been held not to restrict state governments in relation to their residents.199
Because of that, and to insure a personal right to keep arms in addition to the collective right
to an armed militia guaranteed by the Second Amendment, the 1970 constitutional convention
proposed this section. The committee explanation stated that “a citizen has the right to possess and make reasonable use of arms that law-abiding persons commonly employ for purposes of recreation or the protection of person and property. Laws that attempted to ban all possession or use of such arms . . . would be invalid.”200 However, the delegate who explained
the committee proposal to the full convention stated four times on the floor that it would not prevent a complete ban on handguns.201 A nearly total ban on handguns in Morton Grove was upheld under this section by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago.202 The Illinois Supreme Court, by 4-3 vote, also held that the Morton Grove ordinance did not violate this section. Vigorous dissents by the minority judges illustrate the closeness of the question.203 The U.S. Court of Appeals also held that Chicago’s ban on buying handguns beginning in 1982 did not violate the U.S. Constitution, affirming a federal district court decision that had also upheld the ordinance against attack under this section.204 Illinois Appellate Court decisions have held that this section does not invalidate laws denying a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card (required to buy a firearm legally) to anyone who has been a patient in a mental institution at any time in the past 5 years,205 and prohibiting carrying a loaded firearm in a municipality except on one’s own premises.206
end quote
The above two paragraphs can be found in the 1970 Illinois Constitution, Annotated for Legislators, Fourth Edition, updated 2005. Didn’t find a first edition online, which is what we really need. The fourth edition text includes additional post 1970 commentary (which, based on the dates of the decisions, could not have been in the original) supporting gun control, starting with the Morton Grove line and continuing to the end. Note that it has not been revised to reflect the McDonald decision ruling the Chicago gun ban as unconstitutional. It appears that the fourth edition is not an impartial reciting of the facts as known in 1970. At least they did footnote the additions / revisions so you can figure out the modifications.
If you take it at face value without the latter added commentary and assume it is supposed to be read as clear language (one of the 1970 con con objectives), one could reasonably assume the 1970 Con-Con did not intend for complete bans or excessive regulation although they seemed to recognize it could be done under the law at the time. The “protection of person” phrase could be interpreted as allowing some kind of carry …
If you go to the actual ballot presented to the citizens, the explanation for Section 22 was:
“This new section states that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms can not be infringed, except as the exercise of this right may be regulated by appropriate laws to safeguard the welfare of the community.”
Again, the explanation language was vague enough, with the word “appropriate”, that you could read what you wanted to into it.
The actual Con-Con discussions ranged all over the place and are way too lengthy to copy here. You can read them for yourself staring about page 1688 in the full transcript. There was quite a bit of discussion that both the legislative and police power wasn’t absolute.
This is already way too long. The bottom line the way I see it:
The 1970 Con-Con tried to have it both ways; affirm the 2A right but also have maintain the existing heavy regulation. Re McDonald, we know at least one of their assumptions was false. Since the explanation of Section 22 explicitly referenced US 2A, SCOTUS has to eventually decide this one. Or we pass a state constitutional amendment to clarify it.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 12:21 am
voice your support for HB 148 Brandon Phelps said he may bring it up again around March and guess what.
ISRA is proud to sponsor Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day for 2012. Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Forget the hassle of parking near the Capitol! IGOLD will have buses going to Springfield from strategic locations throughout Illinois. Ride the bus, ride with your friends. This year there are additional buses in the Chicago area.
http://igold.isra.org/
Comment by Jim Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 2:10 am
Benny,That seems contradictory to all the civil rights language that was included … especially since gun control has often been used to suppress the civil rights of minorities. John W
That is correct and suppressing the civil rights of minorities was the intent of Illinois’ language. We are in agreement, John. The 1970’s language came after the MLK riots.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 8, 12 @ 10:39 am