Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

SAF win confirmed: Illinois has just months to create concealed carry laws, or defaults to constitutional carry

Written By: Bob - Feb• 22•13

I love the bitter taste of statist tears:

The Second Amendment Foundation today won a significant victory for concealed carry when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals let stand a December ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that forces Illinois to adopt a concealed carry law, thus affirming that the right to bear arms exists outside the home.

The ruling came in Moore v. Madigan, a case filed by SAF. The December opinion that now stands was written by Judge Richard Posner, who gave the Illinois legislature 180 days to “craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment…on the carrying of guns in public.” That clock is ticking, noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.

“Illinois lawmakers need to create some kind of licensing system or face the prospect of not having any regulations at all when Judge Posner’s deadline arrives,” Gottlieb said. “They need to act. They can no longer run and hide from this mandate.”

“We were delighted with Judge Posner’s ruling in December,” he continued, “and today’s decision by the entire circuit to allow his ruling to stand is a major victory, and not just for gun owners in Illinois. Judge Posner’s ruling affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms, itself, extends beyond the boundary of one’s front door.”

In December, Judge Posner wrote, “The right to ‘bear’ as distinct from the right to ‘keep’ arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of ‘bearing’ arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.”

Judge Posner subsequently added, “To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.”

While Democrats have a 40-19 advantage in the Illinois Senate and a 71-47 advantage in the legislature, the Republicans have a distinct advantage: time. They can filibuster, delay, amend and otherwise obstruct the sort of draconian “may-issue” legislation the Democrats would prefer in favor of the more commonly accepted “shall-issue”permitting that is prevalent in the rest of the nation.

If Democrats refuse to work with Republicans on “shall issue” permitting, then clever Republicans—if they exist in Illinois—can threaten to use parliamentary procedures to run out the clock, which expires in June. If that occurs, residents will have constitutional carry: any gun, almost anywhere, at any time.

There is no way Illinois Democrats would let that happen, so it will be interesting to see how the minority Republicans choose to play the strong hand that they’ve been dealt.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

11 Comments

  1. Chuck says:

    While it is generally true that democrats favor gun control, in Illinois the conceal carry law was crafted by a democrat and has the support of many downstate democrats. It is more an issue of downstate vs Chicago. I’m no shill for the democrats, but it needs to be noted they are our allies in this fight, and in fact are leading the way.

  2. Cole says:

    I have to disagree on one point Bob. The Democrats here in Illinois ARE liable to stall and delay until constitutional carry goes into effect. They are so use to getting their way on everything I don’t think they sense the ticking clock. Alvarez was out the other day saying they could ignore federal court rulings. They’ve ruled here in Chicago with impunity. I think they’re far too arrogant to pass some ‘may issue’ conceal carry law and have their crony Cook County Sheriff deny all the applications from regular citizens. No, I think we have a very good chance that the clock runs and constitutional carry becomes law. And all thanks to the extreme arrogance of the Chicago Machine.

    • Rob Crawford says:

      They’re Democrats. They’re used to arguing that federal civil rights don’t apply to THEIR state. It’s a party tradition.

  3. mack says:

    No may issue will pass due to a large majority of downstate democrats and republicans that will oppose any may issue law. Whilst the arrogant Chicago proper pols may be willing to try to run out the clock and pass a ccok county ban on CCW or a strict may issue law for cook that allows essentially bans carry for practical purposes. Some of the Chicago coalition formerly against a CCW law have started to move into the shall issue camp as some don’t think a may issue law would pass muster with the 7th and they are terrified of constitutional carry. They don’t buy the cook county argument at all that they can ignore the court’s ruling. Chicago’s intransigence is losing them support in the house and senate. Unless the case is put on hold due to the USSC granting Cert on an appeal, Illinois will have a shall issue CCW law by June of 2013.

  4. Comrade X says:

    It is crazy, Illinois gun laws might get better while places like Colorado goes down the drain!

    One thing I am finding in my (blue) state on this new round of the gun control debate; there are a lot of democrats who own guns and don’t much care for all the new restrictions.

    I’ll admit that there will always be some R’s who have it butt backwards on just about any issue including gun control legislation but all in all; the gun grabbers are mainly D’s and the rank and file democrats aren’t much appreciating it.

    Methinks in 2014 the R’s will have a good chance to make some big gains in the US Senate & House and in many state legislatures & Governors too if they don’t blow it and put up a bunch of losers (or possible winners who run lousy campaigns) to run against the D’s as seem to be their habit of late.

    And with the O being a lame duck and all, it seems possible we might be able to get the ball rolling back in the right direction.

    However the big question will be whether or not Obama with his allies (like the media scoundrels who call themselves journalists) and the current weak knee group of R’s running the House allowed Obama to destroy this great country as he seems to be so intent in doing. My opinion is that those who want to torch the constitution and the country have the odds riding with them for now.

    Death before slavery!

  5. Steven says:

    On a slightly related note: I just saw a new story on [some news tv show - not sure if CNN or Fox] about how there are calls for the National Guard to be deployed to Chicago to quell the violence.

    VERY.BAD.IDEA.

    I mean, it totally fits with making Americans desensitized to and distrustful of the military being on the streets.

    But, setting aside the easily thought out (and not in conspiracy realm) machinations of those that would use troops but at the same time make the ROEs so that the public got used to the troops being in “troubled cities” and at the same time make the public distrust the military – this is still a VERY BAD IDEA.

    I am IN the military – full time Nat’l Guard actually – and this is a recepie for disaster.

    Our ROE’s (Rules of Engagement) and trainng are meant for WAR. Our troops are not trained to do civilian policing. And while we could be, that kind of “eye” and experience in dealing with street criminals takes YEARS to develop – as many cops can attest.

    Putting us out there, not for a natural disaster like Katrina, but for general purpose “our city is unsafe” use puts our military in a very very bad position.

    On a deep visceral level it makes me very uneasy to think of the US Military being used on US soil – especially under the current regime.

    • blindside says:

      “Our ROE’s (Rules of Engagement) and trainng are meant for WAR. Our troops are not trained to do civilian policing. And while we could be, that kind of “eye” and experience in dealing with street criminals takes YEARS to develop – as many cops can attest.

      Putting us out there, not for a natural disaster like Katrina, but for general purpose “our city is unsafe” use puts our military in a very very bad position.”

      That is the intent. It is a feature, not a bug.

      I am curious why the 180 day delay. If the state is violating the civil rights of it’s citizens, then relief should be immediate.

  6. Paul says:

    “There is no way Illinois Democrats would let that happen, so it will be interesting to see how the minority Republicans choose to play the strong hand that they’ve been dealt.”

    They are Republicans. Never underestimate the power of their stupidity or their instinct for feckless capitulation.

  7. theBuckWheat says:

    Great news, but as was famously said, “don’t get cocky kid”. Whatever the Republicans force the Dems to accept will have to survive future attempts to repeal and replace it.

    Florida’s law is a good model. Require some training in the law and a simple practical test. Have a 5 year renewal period. Here is the lesson that I learned while helping the Missouri group: set a fee that can accrue at least in part to the benefit of the LEO who has to do the work. Set the amount he gets to be high enough so he can easily make a profit. In Missouri, it was amazing to see how many LEOs quickly came to view the CCW permit as a profit center and found the customer easy to get along with as compared to a lot of their other “customers” from whom they get fees.

    Don’t be afraid to set a $100 fee. You can always lower it later, that is after all the people who opposed CCW have a chance to be shown to be so very wrong in their prejudices. The goal is to get CCW in place, all other preferences are secondary.

    As to carry restrictions, read Missouri’s law very carefully and see what happens if a CCW permitee violates the prohibitions.

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5710000107.htm

    Notice section (2).

  8. So many of us just want to understand why concealed carry is prohibited in ONE state? I’m sure you Dems have seen the stats. Concealed carry is proven to deter crime, and Chicago has one of the highest crime rates in the entire country. What IS the objection? I agree people who want to carry concealed should be properly trained, so add that to the bill and get it passed. Your state can’t afford to have the criminals thinking it’s a good place to roost anymore.