Patch Flash: Court Rules IL Concealed Carry Ban Unconstitutional

Chicagoland news to talk about: Quinn pushes for marriage equality bill.

Gun-rights advocates claimed a major victory on Tuesday when a federal appeals court in Illinois struck down the state's ban on carrying concealed firearms, in a ruling that may have national repercussions if appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Before the 2-1 ruling, Illinois stood as the last state in the country maintaining an absolute prohibition on the carrying of concealed firearms by private citizens. The majority opinion, by Richard A. Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, found the ban on concealed weapons was unconstitutional under a 2008 Supreme Court decision overturning a sweeping handgun ban by the District of Columbia.

The Supreme Court's decision in 2008 firmly established a constitutional right to armed self-defense under the Second Amendment, Posner wrote.

"A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home," he wrote.

Illinois House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, who supports stricter gun control measures, said she hoped the ruling would be stayed until the Supreme Court had a chance to rule on an appeal. But if the state is forced to implement a concealed carry law, it should be severely restrictive, she said.

Democratic Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn commented Monday that he'd like to see the state legislature pass a marriage equality bill and get it to his desk in January.

Quinn urged state lawmakers to study the matter carefully before they return to Springfield for the lame duck session beginning Jan. 2.

The governor's comments arrived following the release of a Public Policy Polling poll that found that 47 percent of Illinois voters support same-sex marriage and support increased among both younger voters and voters of color, including Latino voters, who were 70 percent in support, the Windy City Times reports.

The Chicago area broke an 18-year-old record on Tuesday as it entered its 282nd day without measurable snow. If the lack of snow continues, Chicago could soon break an even oldest record: The latest date that the city has ever seen its first measurable snowfall of the season is Dec. 16, 1965.

House member Lou Lang (D-Skokie) has been pushing two controversial bills in recent years: the expansion of Illinois gaming and the legalization of medical marijuana. Whenever asked about the possibility of Illinois becoming the nineteenth state to legalize the green leafy substance, Lang is always optimistic. Two years ago, he told Skokie Patch he only needed to secure "two or three" votes to pass the bill. Obviously, that never came to fruition.

However, other states have recently passed similar bills and Lang is hoping Illinois can become the next state to ride the green wave and help those who can seriously benefit from the drug.

"Nobody should fear the bill," Lang told Skokie Patch. "This is about quality of life for people."


Brian L. December 13, 2012 at 07:29 PM
Gary, using part of what I said without acknowledging the rest doesn't really do much to prove a point. Just like selective stats, selective quoting can be misused as well. Using the first part of a sentence without the qualifier to negate it doesn't mean i support concealed carry.
Paul Shafer December 13, 2012 at 07:31 PM
I'll pack heat if it helps me get chicks.
millie December 13, 2012 at 08:18 PM
It won't
David Greenberg December 13, 2012 at 09:24 PM
Sorry Stevie, I'm not, nor have I ever claimed to be an attorney. And I don't know who Mr. Peterson had for representation.
David Greenberg December 13, 2012 at 09:31 PM
I agree that people who are DRINKING should not engage in CC. But simply being someplace where alcohol is served shouldn't preclude one from engaging in CC, so long as the CC permit holder is NOT drinking. This works well in other States, there's no reason why it can't work here. Requiring all persons to become unarmed merely turns those areas into victim zones if some criminal decides to commit a criminal act. Unfortunately, as we've seen many times across the Nation, criminals don't respect "Gun Free Zone" signs. I seem to recall a shooting at a restaurant in Texas. The restaurant had a "no guns" sign posted so the law-abiding were unarmed and "easy pickin's" for the criminal that came into the restaurant and started shooting patrons. One woman who was a CC holder, left her firearm in the car. She was unable to defend her father from the criminal when the criminal shot her dad in the head - pretty much right in front of her. So make it simple - ZERO BAC while CC.
Jim December 13, 2012 at 09:46 PM
I do find it amusing that our govenor and the mayor of Chicago do not go anywhere without armed guards and yet are adamant that ordinary citizens are not to have the same protections. Smacks of hypocritical politics, doesn't it.
Brian L. December 13, 2012 at 09:58 PM
I see your point, but the people guarding him are trained in security and the use of the guns. It loops back to one of the things I mentioned I would like to see with a national CC law instead of individual states doing whatever they want. In order to obtain a permit to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise, you should be required to pass a few tests (eg: practical in firing and gun care, written in defense laws and situational laws)
David Greenberg December 13, 2012 at 10:05 PM
I've got news for you - many CC holders are actually better trained than the "security" or cops because they go practice more often. This isn't to disparage anyone - I know plenty of cops who take the time to practice regularly - some more often than is departmentally mandated. And there's quite a few who only do the minimum, so their targeting scanners are off a bit :-) As for the passing a few tests - forget it. Once you let that camel get its nose under the tent, it'll wreck it because the tests will become so onerous that even RoboCop wouldn't be able to pass them. All you need is a background check - make sure they're not a felon or adjudged mentally incompetent/insane by a Court of competent jurisdiction, and make sure they've completed a training class with a certified firearms instructor. Don't mandate the content of the class - simply that a certified instructor has signed off on their application. If the government wants people to regularly attend a range and fire off a certain number of rounds to "stay sharp" - then the Government should give them the ammunition for free to do so, otherwise it'd be tantamount to an illegal taking of property under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. Remember: The criminals aren't going to do any of this. They don't care. You want to make it as easy as possible on the LAW ABIDING so they can protect themselves when seconds count.
Brian L. December 13, 2012 at 10:07 PM
Makes sense David, but how on earth would something like be monitored other than a "scouts honor" sort of deal? We've heard a lot about these victim zones, but isn't arming everyone a band aid to solving the initial problem? If the problem is people bringing in guns to shoot others, shouldn't we focus on stopping that from happening? Just allowing more guns to the party seems like a very short sighted fix. I know the world, especially our country, is an imperfect place where there will always be bad people. It's just hard for me to get past the mentality of "if they try and wrong/harm/shoot me, i get to pull a gun/shoot them." We always have these long discussions and we never really address the fact that guns are readily available for everyone. It's a weapon that can be used to defend, threaten, and ultimately kill. It shouldn't be so easy to obtain one...especially illegally.
Brian L. December 13, 2012 at 10:21 PM
To just say that many CC holders are better shots is a pretty broad and unfounded statement. I more than happy to say that in the grand scheme it may even out on who is better shot, because there are many law enforcement and security officers who hit the ranges as well. A background check won't tell you anything about someones ability to fire a gun at another person in a pressure situation. It won't tell you if the CC holder will just pull the trigger on someone without some warning or identifying themselves. That's how people end up shooting a relative out of quick reaction. (see recent stories of the step son shot late at night and the young girl shot because her uncle thought she was a skunk.) I had mentioned classes before, but I see your point about ammunition costing a lot....especially over time. But if you say most of these people practice a lot, then just passing a test shouldn't be hard without classes...even forgetting the practical section thereof. If it's a constitutional right to carry a weapon for the reason of defense, intended to instill the threat of death on other citizens, how is it a bad thing to ask that people be educated in the matter in order to own one?
Jim Osburn December 13, 2012 at 10:28 PM
Sometimes a weapons ban doesn't work = e.g. Evanston's ban on hand guns. Sometimes a weapons ban does work = e.g. Evanston's ban on Nuclear Weapons. At least the EPD has not found any fission or fusion bombs here.
David Greenberg December 13, 2012 at 10:35 PM
It's not a bad thing per se to ask people to be educated on using firearms safely, but to allow the Government to mandate the form of the education becomes tantamount to a ban because then no one (or virtually no one) can meet the requirements. Let's talk about the form of a test for a minute. Let's assume that a "good shot" is someone who can hit the target within the bullseye, or the two/three rings outside of it. Their groupings are good too (meaning that they're all in basically the same area - not all over the place). We consider them a "good shot" today. Then we go along in time and decide we have to tighten up the requirements for whatever reason. At what point is it too onerous? What about when we get to the point that all you're allowed to hit are bullseyes, all in the same hole (vis a vis "William Tell") - arguably that leaves out people who are good shots but aren't sniper-quality (and most snipers aren't able to make that kind of shot either). What about the elderly person who can't get out of the wheelchair, but arms himself to protect against neighborhood thugs? Do we then make exceptions? For whom? How does one qualify for them? How is one excluded from those exceptions? There's too much vagueness in letting the Government set the terms and conditions of a test. And then there's the whole concept of having to take a test to exercise a creator-endowed right to consider...
jeff December 13, 2012 at 10:38 PM
Intended to instill the threat of death on other citizens?? Huh? Brian, The cc permit gives you the right to carry outside your home you can then defend yourself outside of your home with a firearm if your attacked. Responsible Illinois gun owners aren't going to go get their cc permits and go riot in the streets and look for trouble. Most of them won't even apply for it in the first place. If you dont like the back ground checks the states and feds do then go complain to them. You can list all your little stories you want but the criminals dont get a back ground check, they don't need a FOID card, they have no waiting period to go get their guns which are readily available to them anywhere. The damage,death caused by criminals with guns is millions times more than accidents caused by a legal responsible gun owners.
David Greenberg December 13, 2012 at 10:41 PM
You don't have to monitor it at all. If something happens involving a CC permit holder, and the Police have reasonable suspicion to believe the person has been drinking - they give the holder a Breathalyzer test - anything other than 0.000 BAC means they have more investigation to do (i.e., receipts for alcohol purchase, review security tapes at the restaurant, talk to servers, etc.) - then pull that person's permit and hold them accountable via some appropriate method depending upon what happened. Unfortunately focusing on keeping the guns out of an area is a nice idea, but ultimately unworkable. As we saw in the Colorado theater shooting - the criminal just went out the back door and came back in. There's also other kinds of weapons that one can commit mayhem with that wouldn't show up on a metal detector. There was a theater where some patron stabbed another patron in the neck with a meat thermometer (it could have easily have been a pencil). The only thing you can do is accept that bad things happen on occasion, and be prepared to deal with it as best you can. If you're in fear for your life, you should be able to defend yourself. That's the way it's been for millenia, and that's the way it should be because it puts the criminals on notice that they can be harmed during their attacks, and that may just give them pause. As for getting one illegally - criminals will always do that. And it shouldn't prevent the law-abiding from obtaining weapons if they wish.
jeff December 13, 2012 at 10:45 PM
Exactly! and that pause is whats going to save your life 9 times out of 10 before the gun would even get fired anyway. CC guns save lives everyday and never get fired! Somebody gets it on here!
Brian L. December 13, 2012 at 10:47 PM
Jeff, I thought we were done. Can we have this discussion like big boys this time around? Where you actually read what I put and keep even keeled? I never said they would riot in the streets with their guns or that all of them will just shoot willy nilly. There are some people (and it may be a small amount) that end up killing people they don't intend to. My point on the "intended to instill the threat to kill" is what carrying a gun is about, is it not? If you had a CC, what is the final point? If someone attacks you, you have the means to threaten them with possible death by shooting. You may not have to shoot, but the intent has to be there in order for the criminal to be frightened. I also never said I had a problem with background checks and waiting periods. I was merely stating that they won't always find the problems and won't educate gun owners in any way. Now please...don't get fired up and cause this go off the rails like a freight train again. Just responding to your accusations on what you believe I think.
Brian L. December 13, 2012 at 10:55 PM
David, as I'm sure you remember, we have had many conversations on this matter usually revolving around the same things. I feel like we have enough info to write some large essays with opposing view points. I understand your concerns but it is just a slippery slope concept that you are worrying about. Every single instance of any law or requirement can always be countered with a what if statement. We would have no laws or regulations on anything if the only reason to not pass them is "what will happen when we change the laws to be more strict?" Yes, there may be more strict tests down the road, but on the same token, there may not be. Things may stay status quo. We have had testing to be able to drive for a long time now, and I can't think of harm that it has caused. People may not pay attention to laws and just pass the tests and forget everything they learned (in either gun or auto classes/tests) but if one out of ten becomes safer, it' a good thing. If you have that many problems, then maybe we start with it not being mandatory to take the safety classes (like getting your Motorcycle or car license) but offer an incentive to take the class instead. Scrap any practical test, just make it written. Lower costs for a Concealed Carry permit if you pass the safety class first. Something along those lines.
jeff December 13, 2012 at 10:57 PM
No it is to protect not to kill. You still don't get it. Your not packing heat with the intent to go out to "kill" Responsible gun owners if they so wish with a cc can leave their home with their weapon for protection and self defense they don't go out to purposely kill. If they are attacked by someone and their life is in danger they can now defend themselves if the bad guy gets killed thats self defense and is an action of one defending his or herself.
Brian L. December 13, 2012 at 11:05 PM
Right it is self defense, I understand completely. I know they aren't going out with the specific intent to kill. But what I am saying is that in order for that defense mechanism (a concealed weapon) to work, there has to be a threat of something happening. In this case the criminal is supposed to worried that you might have a gun. He's not worried that you might show it to him, he is worried that you might kill him. So in all here, I'm saying that whenever a gun is brought somewhere (by a criminal or CC permit holder) the threat ends up the same but for different reasons. The criminal wants you to be scared of dying so you will give him your wallet, succumb to rape....any reason, while you want him to be scared of dying for wanting to do those. Your intention is obviously more noble and right, but we're still saying the gun is a tool to impose a threat of pain or death.
jeff December 13, 2012 at 11:10 PM
No its not to impose its to protect big difference and when your being threatened with your life the reasons don't matter anymore to the criminal.
Brian L. December 13, 2012 at 11:22 PM
Alright, maybe if I use different wording. You're looking at threat the wrong way. You aren't threatening him the sense of being an assailant. You (the CC holder) are not the threat in this scene. Death or wounding is the threat. You are definitely defending yourself from his threat of...let's say a mugging. He's threatening to mug you at knife point. You pull your gun to be a defender. Why is he scared at that point? Because you might shoot him and he might die. Therefore, he is afraid of death by gunshot. He knows the threat may be real, so he runs instead. That's what I mean here. I don't think conceal carry holders will kill us all. By no means do I think that. I just don't feel that this is the proper way to curb violence and more specifically, gun violence. If two guns happen to be pulled, someone has a chance to die by gun shot. Yes, if the assailant dies he may have deserved it. I just don't feel that either of you should be shot in the street.
jeff December 13, 2012 at 11:28 PM
You just described self defense with out the intent to kill! Nice job! Hes only afraid by death by gunshot after he threatens "after" and after the gun comes out for protection not intent to kill from the beginning.
Brian L. December 13, 2012 at 11:37 PM
Right, in that exact scenario. But the whole point here is that he is supposed to be worried about dying by your gun so he won't even try to commit the crime.
Jim Osburn December 13, 2012 at 11:46 PM
jeff, please reread what Brian has posted. He has come around to the position that CC does protect victims. His worry is about collateral damage from proliferation of weapons (guns that are stolen, guns that are lost, guns that are casually transferred, etc.). So why are you still beating him up? These postings are going circular, let's think about what rules should be or should not be imposed on this constitutional right.
jeff December 13, 2012 at 11:46 PM
You still don't get it how is he worried about dying by your gun when he doesn't know you have it? After he attacks and you defend yourself then he knows at that point but thats an act of defense whether he's afraid of dying or not has nothing to do with cc permits.
jeff December 13, 2012 at 11:47 PM
Thats the problem Illinois gets to make the rules we don't.
Jerry December 14, 2012 at 03:32 AM
I am a legal gun owner. I have many different types of weapons. I reload.My wife and I both shoot at gun ranges and she in fact has qualified for CC when it is enacted, passing preliminary tests. Let me add my opinion....we as a state are faced with Pandora's box here. Open it and handle the consequences improperly and we could have massive problems. Even tho I am delighted by the ruling, we must take great care to properly screen all applicants and allow CC with the greatest degree of caution. I realize that allowing a CC permit doesn't insure the sanity of a person ad infinitum or insure that this human being won't be overcome by some fit of rage at another human being in the future but we must take every necessary steps to keep folks with a criminal or mental history from getting a CC permit and especially a firearm....just my 2 cents...God Bless America. Keep in mind this quote "The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people". -- President Bill Clinton
Just Sayin December 15, 2012 at 03:47 AM
This is all I have to say after the events in Conn. today. All you gun loving fools out there...stick your guns where the sun don't shine...and pull the triggers. We don't need your mentalities roaming this planet.
jeff December 15, 2012 at 03:50 AM
Come and get them pussy! Its loud mouth punks like yourself that flip out and commit crimes like this. Do us all a favor and go hang yourself!
G.G. December 15, 2012 at 05:36 AM
Just sayin; It's precisely the "your mentalities" that established this country and made it the the single most successful, generous, most free society with the highest standard of living in the shortest period of time on the face of the planet. It's sad that you think that somehow needs to change. The problem is that the culture is changing for the worse with the liberal indoctrination of kids in society through public education and political correctness run amuck. Culture rot and the lack of respect for human life is what we need to be concerned with going forward.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something