Posted on 12/12/2012 5:08:04 AM PST by rellimpank
Illinois' days as the only state in the nation to forbid public possession of a firearm could be numbered after a federal appellate court threw out a state ban and gave lawmakers six months to figure out a way to let people legally carry guns.
The 2-1 ruling Tuesday by a 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in Chicago affirmed a constitutional right to have ready-to-use firearms for self-defense outside the home.
Gun owner groups declared a historic victory, claiming leverage to limit restrictions on who can possess a weapon as negotiations on a new state law unfold. Gun control advocates acknowledged the need for a revised concealed carry law but said the court's ruling still allowed for strict limitations.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
You do not have a 2nd amendment right to carry a concealed weapon (as far as I know). So, it seems unlikely that the court decision compels Illinois to pass a "conceal carry" law.
The ignorance of the people that write these news stories is frustrating.
The Bill of Rights makes no concealed carry/open carry distinction. You can constitutionally conceal your gun as far as I am concerned.
Don't get your hopes up, Illinois gun owners. They'll probably pull a "Jersey" on you, requiring that you prove a "need" to carry. But unless you are a LEO or RAT connected, the proof will never be sufficient.
I found a news story from when the lawsuit was filed that explains it pretty well:
SAF Sues Illinois Over Ban on Carrying Guns for Self-Defense BELLEVUE, Wash., May 13, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Second Amendment Foundation has filed suit in federal court in Illinois, challenging the state's complete prohibition on the carrying of firearms in public for the purpose of self-defense.
The lawsuit alleges that Illinois statutes that completely ban the carrying of handguns for self-defense are "inconsistent with the Second Amendment."...
"Illinois is currently the only state in the country that imposes a complete prohibition on the carrying of firearms for personal protection by its citizens," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb....
"Illinois is the only state in the country that completely prohibits its citizens from carrying guns for self-defense," Jensen added...
"Every other state has some kind of regulatory scenario," Gottlieb noted. "Even in Wisconsin, where there is no concealed carry statute, the state attorney general has recognized that open carry is legal....
and please understand I'm not against concealed carry laws, I just don't think these news stories allow the average person to understand the outrageous nature of the current law in Illinois.
As usual the libtard media blames the gun.
“..Salazar brought out the gun to show it off, when it then fired..”
Chicago man sentenced to four years in prison for shooting death of Schererville woman
15 hours ago • Steven Ross Johnson Times Correspondent
CHICAGO | A Chicago man convicted last month of manslaughter in the July 2011 shooting death of a Schererville woman was sentenced to four years in prison Tuesday.
In his ruling, Cook County Associate Judge James B. Linn described the incident that took the life of 26-year-old Holly Hieber as “unnecessary,” calling it a tragedy for both the victim’s family, as well as for the loved ones of the defendant, 19-year-old Osvaldo Salazar.
Linn found Salazar guilty in November of involuntary manslaughter, unlawful use of a weapon and concealment of a homicide.
The day’s ruling marked the end of a long search for justice by Hieber’s mother, Louise Hieber, who expressed the incredible toll placed upon her entire family as a result of Salazar’s actions, specifically to Hieber’s father Fred, who died in May of a heart attack she said was caused by the stress of losing their only child.
“You put a bullet in my daughter’s head and you just as well put a bullet in my husband’s heart,” Hieber said. “Because they are both no longer with me.”
Hieber was shot July 10, 2011 while attending a party being held in Salazar’s garage. Prosecutors said Salazar brought out the gun to show it off, when it then fired, striking Hieber in the head. Salazar then tried to cover up what happened by hiding the gun and telling police Hieber was the victim of a drive-by shooting.
This is great news for us oppressed Illinoisans. I actually prefer open carry, Like the old Willy Nelson tune “he wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to feel”
Don't get your hopes up, Illinois gun owners. They'll probably pull a "Jersey" on you, requiring that you prove a "need" to carry. But unless you are a LEO or RAT connected, the proof will never be sufficient.
It's possible they may try, but the Court clearly indicated that it would consider a discretionary permitting system like NY's to be inadequate.
I'd think a shall-issue law that exempts Chicago to be more likely.
Meanwhile, does anyone know what's going on in Maryland?
concealed carry used to be a crime a lot of places, but that is changing or has changed.
It was assumed that if you hid it, you had nefarious reasons.
Yes, the fact that concealed carry was illegal in the past, and now requires a permit from the state (in most of the states), gets to the point I'm trying to make.
The point is: The right to openly carry a gun comes from the 2nd amendment, you don't need a permit from the state to do so.
Since this is not the case with concealed carry (states can and mostly do require you to get a permit), it looks to me as though some in the media are either complete morons or intentionally using the term "concealed carry" in stories about this case to confuse the issue.
Why do you think that? I don't see any indication in the court's decision to indicate that somehow Chicago will be immune from the prohibitions of the Second Amendment. It was Chicago who was the defendant in the McDonald case involving guns in the home. Chicago lost.
Here's an excerpt from the New Mexico Constitution:
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.
See the difference between this and the Second Amendment? If our Founders were concerned about concealed carry, they could have said so.
I'm also pleased that you have concluded that "you don't need a permit from the state" to open carry. Just what makes concealed carry so special that you think it deserves infringement?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.