Skip to comments.Illinois Supreme Court Declares State's Ban on Carrying Firearms Unconstitutional
Posted on 09/14/2013 5:37:01 PM PDT by neverdem
In an unusually forceful and straightforward opinion(PDF) in the case of People v. Aguilar, the Supreme Court of Illinois unanimously held that the state's "comprehensive ban" on the "use of an operable firearm for self-defense outside the home" is invalid on its face under the Second Amendment. The NRA had participated in the case with an amicus brief.
The court surveyed the Supreme Court's recent Second Amendment decisions, as well as state and federal precedents from courts in Illinois. Regarding the significance of the Supreme Court's opinions, it declared: "neither Heller nor McDonald expressly limits the second amendment's protections to the home. On the contrary, both decisions contain language strongly suggesting if not outright confirming that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home." It also characterized the Illinois law as "a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that is specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution ." According to the court, "In no other context would we permit this, and we will not permit it here either."
While the court noted that "we are in no way saying that such a right is unlimited or is not subject to meaningful regulation," it did not condition its holding on any further action by the legislature. It noted Illinois' recently-enacted Firearm Concealed Carry Act only in passing, stating that it was not "at issue in this case."
Invoking precedents from two federal appellate courts, the Illinois Supreme Court also held that the state's general ban on the possession of concealable firearms by minors does not run afoul of the Second Amendment. Notably, one of the cases upon which the court relied for this portion of the opinion was National Rifle Ass'n of America, Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms [&] Explosives, which upheld a federal prohibition on the sale of handguns by federally licensed dealers to adults aged 18 to 20. The NRA has recently filed a brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review that decision. Twenty-two state attorneys general also filed a brief in support of NRA's efforts in that case.
While residents of Illinois eagerly await implementation of the state's new concealed carry licensing process, they can rest assured that under controlling precedent in both state and federal courts, their right to bear arms in self-defense is not a "privilege" bestowed upon them by the legislature but a fundamental right the state and its localities are bound to respect.
It still amazes me the Supreme Court of Illinois issued a ruling in such close conformity to the Constitution.
Lisa Madigan is deeply saddened.
I had to read the headline twice—it would not register that this is Illinois.
Wow! Judges who have actually read and understood the Constitution! I didn’t know there were any in the US.
I’m gonna need a bigger holster!
libs/will appeal into federal court. regardless, they will.
Actually, if you could remove Chicago it would be a fairly conservative state. Unfortunately, that's not possible.
Its murder rate would drop by 99% as well!
Cut us in the rural red parts of Illinois a little slack ;-)
I’m not counting any chickens, but if someone like Bruce Rauner were to win the governorship, you’d see a 180 in Illinois like never before. It’s a damned shame that a state with the talent, wealth, and resources of Illinois is being run into the ground by clueless liberal democrats who not only control government, but have rigged the game so they keep themselves in power.
Pat Quinn is, I would guess, being given oxygen right now. He’s just dropped further into irrelevancy. His gun grabbing efforts have now been nixed by the Illinois supreme court, the US count of appeals, and his own freaking political party. He was so desperate to find some personal right to ban that he made using a handheld cell phone in a car illegal anywhere in the state.
Meanehile, Rahmbo is trying to reverse the concealed carry law by revoking business licensure for establishments that don’t ban guns with the insipid little sign.
Expect the NRA to file suit on this within days.
>> I'm stunned.I always thought that Illinois was your typical one Party state.The Massachusetts Supreme Court wouldn't issue a ruling like this in a million years. <<
The Illinois SC has been indisputably the most conservative branch of state government for at least 10 years (of course, given that the Governor is Pat Quinn and the Illinois General Assembly is completely controlled by Mike Madigan, any body to the right of Karl Marx would be "more conservative")
What's really fascinating here is the Dems have a 4-3 majority on the Illinois SC, and the system is rigged to make it almost impossible for Republicans to win a majority on the court, since Cook County "at large" gets three seats, and that means the Chicago Democrat machine gets whoever they want for those three seats. Despite that, this ruling was 7-0 for our side, so somehow they convinced the three Chicago RATs (and 1 downstate RAT) to vote with our guys on conceal carry. This ruling comes recently after the Illinois SC had a similar 7-0 decision to uphold parental notification of abortion for minors. This had been passed by then GOP-controlled Illinois General Assembly in 1995, but the abortion loving liberals held it up in courts for years, until the Illinois SC slapped them down in 2013. (they could still try appealing nationally to SCOTUS, but good luck getting them to block parental notification or even hear the case to begin with). The RATs can't even complain the decision was written by a "right-wing anti-choice zealot", since the decision was written by Justice Anne Burke, a lifelong Democrat and wife of the powerful Chicago machine alderman Ed Burke.
Also interesting, in Illinois, we elected all our judges in partisan elections. Those seven justices on the Illinois SC had to win both primary and general elections. The union thugs spent millions of dollars to get "their guys" on the court, and yet the Justices haven't voted the way they wanted on numerous issues. They could primary an incumbent, but the justices are on 10 year terms. The last time we had a really rabid leftist on the Illinois SC was Justice Gordon Maag of southern Illinois, and he had the misfortune of representing a region of the state that become increasingly conservative over the years, so he lost re-election in 2004 to Republican Lloyd Karmeier, and the Illinois SC went from 5-2 Dem to 4-3 Dem. We could get a GOP majority except Justice Thomas L. Kilbride is an entrenched downstate incumbent, and he's a "well respected" moderate so it would be difficult to unseat him. As it stands, we do have 3 out of the 4 downstate seats, and the court recently selected one of the Republican justices to serve as Chief Justice (Rita Garman of Springfield)
I think this is why you won't see Obama pick any of his home state justices for SCOTUS, however. Chicago is a one-party system like the old deep south, where you HAVE to be a Dem to get elected to any type of office. The result is you have a number of rightward-leaning RAT judges in Cook County.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear BillyBoy!
Bruce Rauner is a combiner and paid "special adviser" to Rahm Emanuel, and he has donated thousands of dollars to socialist Democrats. He is the LAST person we want to nominate. The combine's ideal Governor election for 2014 is Bruce Rauner vs. Bill Daley (guaranteed "win" for them no matter the outcome) Please read norauner.com (Also check out http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2013/08/kelly-rahm-wants-gop-pal-rauner-not-bill-daley-for-illinois-governor.html )
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
We should have the majority, Kilbride never should have won. If not for him maybe we could have gotten the awful congressional and state leg maps thrown out.
“. The result is you have a number of rightward-leaning RAT judges in Cook County.”
A friend of mom’s from church, Judge Susan McDunn, issued some adoption rulings that the queers didn’t like back in the late 90’s and got a target on her back. She was driven to resign last year.
So, how will Quinn and Rahm get around this ruling?
There you go
Rauner is an even worse choice than Obama’s pal Kirk Dillard.
Baring another candidate entering I’ll vote for Brady or Rutherford, which ever is polling better. I don’t quite trust Rutherford and I think Brady is a likely loser in November but Rauner and Dillard are unacceptable combine scum.
What's interesting is that their camps have to turned their guns on each other. If you search the internet, you'll see Rauner and Dillard supporters are constantly attacking each other and blasting the other guy's supporters are RINO enablers (which is like Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell calling each other fat liberals). They're more interested in attacking each other than Rutherford or Brady: "Your guy sucked up to Obama!" "Oh yeah, well your guy sucked up to Rahm Emanuel, SO THERE!" I must confess that I'm very pleased with this development.
There, fixed it.
A whole lot of folks here have been working their asses off in the trenches to make this happen.
They did a great job.
I don’t like any of the governor candidates, much, but, so far, I dislike Rutherford the least, like the least of four evils. Rauner is pro-choice and donated to many Democrats. Brady and Dillard voted for the law that will allow illegal aliens to get driver’s licenses. Since they lost in 2010, they’ll probably lose in ‘14. Rutherford proved that he can win, statewide. Almost as soon as he became treasurer, he cut his department’s spending. While he was a state senator, he had a strong (at least 90%) pro-life and pro-gun voting record.
Massive ruling! Excellent!
I agree, Rutherford looks like the choice. But I’d emphasize that combiner Dillard is much worse than Brady.
Dillard probably would have beaten Quinn if he had successfully stolen the primary election but I’m not sure that would have been a very good thing.
I guess I’d vote for either Dillard or RAHMner over Quinn or Daley but they both disgust me.
Yep, and we get insulted by our fellow freepers, who dismiss our opinions on matter and mock us when they hear that we're a conservative activist from Illinois. We've managed to stop gay marriage from passing in a state where the gerrymandered Chicago RATs have a veto proof majority in both houses, and got a RAT controlled IL Supreme Court to rule 7-0 in favor of gun rights and limiting abortion. Freepers from "more conservative" states take stuff for granted and mock us for working our butts off to make it happen. Perhaps the most annoying is freepers from Virginia, who can't stop their "conservative" state from constantly electing marxist Democrat Senators but feel the need to dismiss the idea that there are any conservatives in Illinois, or anything positive we are doing at the grassroots level to fight the Obamanation.
This decision hasn't exactly been big news or spread around to LE Agencies, like the Chi PD, and new rules and regs aren't on the books or memos even issued. Even pro 2A coppers who know about this don't know wtf to do - they don't want to infringe and be sued, and they don't want a felon to walk away then be liable for that either. Big problem in Chi and Crook County.
A lot of CPD cops are saying screw it, if they make a stop and person is 'clear' (not wanted/felon) and has gun and FOID card, its "Have a Nice Day, be on your way". BUT - there's the young 'hair gel' kool-aid drinkin' cop looking for that merit promotion who'd bust his granny. It's that asshhat you have to watch for.
Right now I'd wait and see. (but if ya feel 'lucky', at the least have your FOID on you - duh)
The SCOIL is, like every government agency, reflective of the electorate. Chicago is pro-gun on the voter’s level. That’s the reality.
Rutherford is the best pick out of a lackluster crowd. He’s a fiscal conservative and is running on that. I’ll give you his negatives:
1. He will consider and has mentioned tax increases as a way to fix Illinois financial woes.
2. He’s a 58 y.o. single man with no public history of dating women. That’s not a deal breaker for me, but it may be for many conservatives.
3. He beat Robin Kelly for a job not many coveted and won in a crowded field.
4. He’s cash poor.
1. He’s a fiscal conservative.
2. He’s been ardently pro-family.
3. He really wants to win.
4. This is the biggy for me: He won a lot of urban votes and has a terrific urban outreach to minorities going.
I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but Rutherford is garnering the support of the Asian and Indian business communities. It’s part of the reason he picked Steve Kim.
If you’re thinking strategically and long term then Rutherford is the guy. We need to start peeling off urban votes, particularly from minorities. It’s an utter shame that the GOP doesn’t do better outreach to minority business owners.
Yeah I’ve heard the homo rumors. I don’t give a crap as long as he keeps it to himself (if it’s even true that is).
The tax thing is what bothers me.
Daley has quit the rat race. Good news because the weak Quinn is who we want to face.
He’s dealing with a Dem state and Dem controlled state house. The key is to make him commit to no tax increases and no new taxes. Make that the condition for conservative support.
Chicago will face a bankruptcy crisis in 2019 driven by pensions, not to mention wasteful spending. Given the bankruptcies in two major cities, that’s a lot of leverage for cutting spending. I suspect that a solid stance against tax increases and for spending cuts would hold, especially if they could blame it on a GOP governor.
I see no one better on the horizon and I want to win.
I agree. I don’t care whether Rutherford is gay. I never heard that he might want to increase tax rates, but, while he was a state senator, he frequently voted for tax cuts and spending cuts.