After the 7th District Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision striking down Illinois’ blanket ban on concealed carry, the National Rifle Association has vowed that the Land of Lincoln will become a “shall issue” state. According to their man on the ground, the NRA’s working with state legislators to craft a new bill (within the 180-day time limit set by the Court) that will require the state to issue residents a concealed carry permit unless the licensing authority can provide a compelling reason a resident shouldn’t be able to exercise their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. “Illinois will not be New Jersey,” Todd Vandermyde told TTAG, referring to the Garden’s State’s bureaucratic blockade of its citizens’ gun rights. What’s more . . .

Vandermyde reckons Illinois’ gun control advocates don’t have a pot to piss in [paraphrasing].

“The anti-gunners have been preparing for this contingency, but we will not have the law that they want: New Jersey on steroids. We have the majority in both chambers. We will have a Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida-style law.”

In fact, there’s only one reason Illinois doesn’t have a concealed carry licensing system already: Chicago. The city’s pro-gun control pols have been suppressing the state’s residents’ rights for decades. No more. Even more heartening . . .

If Vandermyde and his allies get their way—and it looks like they will—the Chicago machine won’t get a “carve-out”  either. They won’t have a separate licensing process for Cook County.

“A year ago, you would have seen a very different law. After today’s decision there’s no way Chicago will get an exception.”

Vandermyde is lifting a few frosties before settling into the hard work of restoring residents’ Second Amendment right to bear arms; fending off those who would exploit the 7th Circuit court’s acceptance of “reasonable limitations” “consistent with public safety” to curtail Illinois’ gun rights.

“It’s been my experience that rushed legislation is never good legislation. We’re not going to rush anything through. We waited this long. We’re going to take our time and get it right . . .

“The big question now: what will the Governor do?”

Recommended For You

89 Responses to NRA: Illinois Will Be A Shall-Issue State

  1. Finally, I won’t be breaking the law carry my pistol. I still hate this state, but stuck here for now. At least I can get a concealed permit in the not too distant future.

      • I’m with you on this one. Chicago has shown a major propensity for ignoring the law and making their own rules. Kind of like LA County in CA – the only way you’re going to get a CCW is if you “know” somebody. Otherwise there is no “good reason” here. And no, they don’t consider “I’d like to be able to defend myself if the need arises” a good reason, cause we have cops.

    • I think you may have a fairly good chance of getting a “shall issue” law in Illinois. Reading the last paragraph of the 7th Circuit decision, they found Illinois’ prohibition on bearing arms outside the home to be unconstitutional, and remanded the cases “to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions.” The 7th Circuit stayed their “mandate” for 180 days to give the Illinois legislature time to “craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable restrictions” on the carrying of guns in public.

      I don’t know what the balance of power is within the Illinois legislature, but if there are enough pro-gun legislators to stymie a law they don’t like, they do NOT have to compromise on shall-issue. If the Illinois legislature does not come up with a law in 180 days, the state will end up with NO gun laws prohibiting public carry: what’s called “Vermont carry”.

      Once the Chicago pols stop wetting their panties and throwing hissy fits, they may actually be forced to see reality. With any luck, the pro-gun legislators will be able to say “shall-issue or nothing”.

      Good luck to residents of Illinois.

    • Best news I have heard since before the election! maybe the best news all year, depending on how the final legislation works out. I will say that I was ABSOLUTELY surprised to be reading this today.

    • Hope you don’t live in Morris county or Union county. The laws in Sussex are bad enough and it’s apparently the best county in the state to gun rights.

      • Dream on. There is nothing in the Seventh’s decision implying that “may issue” is constitutionally infirm; in fact it does not (and could not) reach that issue; instead, it affirmatively implies that SOME form of licensed carry is constitutional. With the Chicago coalition and the Governor all anti, I suspect that the state is much more likely to adopt something like the NY statute affirmed in Kochalski. The real fight is going to be who gets to decide who gets a license….And you can bet that Chicago will push for a system where either the loal municipality or county, not the state, has that power. That of course will result in a new lawsuit, similar to Ezell, when Chicago’s “may issue” statute is defacto no issue.
        Moreover, I expect the state to appeal and to seek a stay of the ruling in the Supreme Court. No telling how that will go at this point.
        Word to the wise: Be patient, and expect years of every delaying tactic smart attorneys can think up.

        • Well, if the 9th Circus goes with the 7th then it will be a win for Kommifornia. If they go the other direction then it will, most likely, get a look by the SCOTUS. Either way I think is good.

          As for Illinois, they are at a true crossroads. While the thinking is that they will institute draconian measures similar to NY I really don’t see that happening. With this ruling they either have to draft an acceptable law, which the legislature is solidly in favor of shall issue but the Gov has said he will veto, or end in a stale mate and then Ill goes constitutional carry.
          Personally, I think that in order to get some sort of “acceptable” CCW law passed the anti’s are going to have to make concessions in other areas.
          Or, they could appeal and the thing goes to SCOTUS which is a good thing.

        • I believe you are mistaken. Here is Judge Posner’s word in the Moore v. Madigan case:

          ” The New York gun law upheld in Kachalsky, although one of the nation’s most restrictive such laws (under the law’s “proper cause” standard, an applicant for a gun permit must demonstrate a need for self-defense greater than that of the general public, such as being the target of personal threats, id. at *3, *8), is less restrictive than Illinois’s law. Our principal reservation about the Second Circuit’s analysis (apart from disagreement, unnecessary to bore the reader with, with some of the historical analysis in the opinion—we regard the historical issues as settled by Heller) is its suggestion that the Second Amendment should have much greater scope inside the home than outside simply because other provisions of the Constitution have been held to make that distinction. For example, the opinion states that “in Lawrence v. Texas, the [Supreme] Court emphasized that the state’s efforts to regulate private sexual conduct between consenting adults is especially suspect when it intrudes into the home.”
          2012 WL 5907502, at *9. Well of course—the interest in having sex inside one’s home is much greater than the interest in having sex on the sidewalk in front of one’s home. But the interest in self-protection is as greatoutside as inside the home. In any event the court in Kachalsky used the distinction between self-protection inside and outside the home mainly to suggest that a standard less demanding than “strict scrutiny” should govern the constitutionality of laws limiting the carrying of guns outside the home; our analysis is not based on degrees of scrutiny, but on Illinois’s failure to
          justify the most restrictive gun law of any of the 50 states.”

          He clearly shows disagreement with the New York decision.

  2. Bad news for hoodlums in Illinois. Within days of WI CCW a bunch of lowlifes got popped. It can’t come fast enough for Chicago

    • That is the stabilizing effect of CCW, isn’t it? Criminals and somewhat aware madmen start to see before them in the streets not a crowd of lambs from which to choose a victim, but an ambiguous and possibly lethal crowd of citizens going about their lawful business. A would-be assailant has to ask himself every single time, “do I feel lucky?” Those poor at casting probabilities are soon out of business for good. The smart ones have to turn to spam-for-bucks or something similar. An improvement, really.

  3. What will the governor do? If the really have both houses and can defeat the veto, it does not matter. The governor is calculating his next election – is he more likely to loose his seat if he votes yes or no? That is his question.

    This is one great day.

  4. Finally!! I’ve been waiting for this for years!

    The governor is very unpopular and the legislators can use this as cover to override any veto.

    • Yeah might finally get to go visit some inlaws as I’ve refused to go to Chicago unarmed and didn’t want to carry illegally

  5. For all you guys and gals in Illinois who have been waiting for this: CHEERS!!! Shall Issue and reasonable guidelines are all you need now!!!!!
    And for Chicago and Cook County to abide b the law!!!

    • This is a reflection of what is to come:
      “As the mayor has said all along, the City of Chicago is committed to maintaining the fullest degree of lawful handgun restrictions possible while still respecting the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens, because maintaining common-sense restrictions is an issue of public safety.” It is fortunate that Illinois has a state law pre-emption when it comes to carry restrictions.

    • Diff District in order for it to effect DC the SCOTUS would have to “Certify” the ruling that means the reviewed the case and agree with it. If the SCOTUS don’t review the cause it because presidents that can be used in other Districts case but it wont void the law right out. Now if 4th comes up with a diff answer for the same question the SCOTUS will be more likely to take up the case to clearly things and there ruling covers the entire country.

      Thanks
      Robert

  6. Just because there was a court ruling doesn’t mean that there won’t be resistance. But more to the point it will be interesting to to watch all this play out.

  7. Yet another reason why I’m not renewing my NRA membership – the SAF does all the work getting the ruling, then the NRA wants to claim responsibility for it. The NRA will only do easy things, like try to influence new laws – they don’t do jack when it comes to challenging bad laws, which is where the real work is.

    • At the same time they serve as a punching bag for the anti-gun groups. They take the heat while SAF does the legal work without having to fight a media battle.

      • I agree with that. The anti public doesn’t now SAF from USAF. The NRA does take the heat, and it has a good legislative staff, while the SAF has the litigation team. I think the answer is to donate to both groups, giving somewhat more to the SAF.

    • I don’t know about that….

      I always saw the NRA as a giant shield. It pushes on everything that’s against gun rights, and defends everything that is for gun rights. The SAF* is like a gladius. It darts around the shield striking victories while the shield keeps the enemy off balance.

      I really need to stop reading Roman battle strategies at 3 am when I can’t sleep… Its starting to affect my similes.

      *Also, I just put in SAF because I didn’t a long thingy in the middle of my sentence. SAF, GOA, NSSF, and all the many state associations are gladius’ of their own.

    • Totenglocke, there were two cases consolidated on appeal. SAF had one, the NRA the other. The two groups are strategic partners now and have been since 2008, if not before. They recognize and promote each other and work closely on cases like these.

    • actually both the Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA were part of this. SAF represnted Moore but the NRA was backing Shepard who is also part of this lawsuit. Todd CVandermyde is the go to guy as far as representing gun owners in illinois and will be instrumental in writing the new as the NRA lobbyistt.

      Make no mistake, Vandermyde and the NRA led the way in this fight. I have been participating in the fight for the last three years and have seen Todd in action. he is most definitely the man of the hour and like me, everyone should join both the NRA and the SAF.

      If you’re an illinois resident and want to help us finish the job (and keep the fight going, the FOID is next) then join us on http://www.IllinoisCarry.com

      • Even if the NRA did pull equal weight on this, their blind loyalty to the Republican party (even if a Republican party is horribly anti-gun) is enough for me to never give them another cent.

        • The NRA’s ratings for Democrat politicians give high marks where they are due. That rating usually coincides with the beliefs of the electorate in that district, or the candidate would not be competitive. If the NRA has thrown a Dem under the bus despite very good marks, I just haven’t seen it. Are there examples?

  8. God the NRA pisses me off. “Illinois will not be New Jersey.” How about New Jersey not being New Jersey? What, exactly, are they doing about that? We in the beautiful Garden State now officially have the unfortunate distinction of being THE WORST state in the nation when it comes to concealed carry. It’s bad enough that a law abiding citizen, no matter how well trained, can possibly obtain a concealed carry permit. But adding insult to injury, connected politicians and of course retired police officers can and do receive permits! The fact that there is a law on NJ’s books technically permitting carry with a showing of “justifiable need” is an example of government double speak and dishonesty worthy of George Orwell. This really has to change.

    • As a NJ resident with an unrecognized non-resident Maine CCW, I couldn’t be more peeved. We’re being completely ignored.

      It’s just adding insult to injury that we have a state AWB, restrictive transportation laws, state eligibility forms, FID cards, pistol permits, no handgun ownership (not even via private sale) until 21, FFL required for out-of-state purchases, and more.

      I would LOVE to live in CA, IL, or MA.

  9. A question for the lawyerly types here at TTAG:

    With the ruling striking the current ban and a 180 day stay for the State government to act and barring any further appeal to either en-banc 7th Circuit or to SCOTUS, would a lack of legislation from the State and passage of 181 days leave Illinois with constitutional carry?

    • Good question!

      I think that the district court would have to craft an appropriate remedy if the legislature and governor don’t act in time. That’s the way previous civil rights cases have been handled.

    • Not a lawerly type, but to offer some similarities, Virginia is an open-carry state, simply b/c there is nothing in the state codes & laws against open-carry (other than schools, courthouses, etc). In my non-lawerly opinion the same type of thing would apply to Illinois, since there will be no laws against CC, it would be legal.

      However, all of this is predicated on there not being a CC law passed within 180 days, which the anti-gunners won’t allow to happen. If the antis let the 180 expire without a new law, it would be like I described above, everyone legally able to own a gun could carry in IL. That’s too much freedom and too much gun rights for the antis to allow, therefor they will work with the pro-gun legislators in IL to craft a CC law before the 180 days expires to insure there are some limits on CC.

  10. Favorite part of the decision: “The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside.”

    • That bit, making clear the distinction between privacy cases and RKBA cases as to the significance of “outside the home” was, aside from its unavoidable humor, a crucial bit of clarification in Posner’s opinion. If the case does lead to Cert eventually, this will be doubly-true. Cases in the 2nd and 9th district will become very interesting. Sometimes the Circuits establish quite different law yet SCOTUS takes a very long time before accepting an opportunity to introduce uniformity, especially in commercial areas of law. I doubt the 2nd Am. cases will get that treatment.

  11. Another step in the right direction. The Supreme Court waits to see the trend in the states, and the trend here is obvious. If only the legislatures of a few remaining states would get with the program, we wouldn’t even need a court case.

  12. Whatever… They should vow to make California a Shall Issue State – One of the largest gun markets in the country. Regardless of the restrictive gun laws, many companies are willing to work around them, an jump through hoops I might add, to accomodate the California (PRC) gun market. It would be stupid to not to account for one of the most populated states int he country. Obviously Illinois is populated and then some, but California needs some help here… CalGuns.net is the only organization actually getting anything done, and they could use some help. As for the CRPA, I hardly hear about their work and accomplishments.

      • And we have vowed to make this state shall issue. Two appeals were heard last week in which the validity of the discretionary ccw system, in light of the ban on open carry, is constitutional. Look for Richards and Peruta decisions in six months to a year (depending on how fast the Ninth decides to act), The panel on the case (two conservatives, one neutral) seemed ready to accept that there is a right to carry outside the home, the only question then becomes what restrictions on that right are valid. Since the only way to bear arms in our urban zones is with a CCW, the “good cause” requirement for issuance is directly in the cross hairs.

  13. So I could eventually wander around Hyde Park in Chicago with a CCW? I would have thought pigs would fly first… Maybe there is progress in the world after all.

  14. The crazy thing about this opinion is that Posner is a serious anti who wrote a scathing article about Scalia’s opinion. It almost — almost — restores my faith in judges when they don’t try to f^ck with a law even though they personally disagree with it. That’s what judges are supposed to do.

    Back in the Warren Court days, judges like Posner just made sh!t up. A new day has dawned, and it doesn’t have any emanations or penumbras.

    • Posner’s work in Law and Economics was (the bit I studied) of very high quality. It is entirely possible that he has seen in action, via results in the many recent shall-issue (with state preemption) jurisdictions, an aspect of the 2nd Am. which he had not perceived in earlier years. He is certainly a principled judge, but also very deeply attuned to empirical results (if there are any) with economic efficiency implications. The 2nd Am. has deeper and broader economic implications than most partisans (pro or anti) are willing to take into account.

  15. Here is where it’s gonna get tough. Illnois doesn’t have preemtion when it comes to gun laws. Cities and counties can make laws tougher than the state’s laws and they are enforced. For example. There is no mag capacity limit in the state, but Aurora is limited to 15, and Chicago/Cook County is limited to 12. So if you live in some small town and take your M&P with a 17 round mag, unloaded and in a case,to the range; and you pass through Chicago. If you don’t have a Chicago handgun permit you can get busted for the gun and the mag.

    I forsee, that if Shall Issue CCW comes to Illinois, Chicago will require a FOID, Illinois CCW permit, AND a Chicago handgun permit to carry. So people who come into the big city from the burbs or down state and don’t have a Chicago permit will still have their guns taken away and get sent to jail.

    • sorry, wrong. House Bill 148 includes pre-emption. No set ofdiiferent laws anywhere in the State. Vandermyde himself wrote that section in the bill.

      Chicago and Cook County are included

      • No effin way!?! If they pass that, it will be worth it then. I live in Aurora and travel (with my handgun) to Indiana quite frequently. I have been warned by ISP and local PD to avoid Chicago. Because if you get pulled over and have a handgun, even with a FOID, unloaded, and locked, Chicago PD will take you to jail if you don’t have a Chicago handgun permit. Makes you have to take the long way around the city to get from Cabela’s to Naperville.

      • Sorry, wrong Bud. HB 148 was the bill that was defeated. With the court ruling, both the ISRA and the pro-gun legislators have vowed they will not allow Chicago or Cook county preemption.

    • He’s only been elected Governor once. He only won four out of the one hundred and one counties but unfortunately one of those counties was Cook which has 2,000,000 voters most of them actually alive.

      He is governor Patsy, owned and controlled by the organized criminal conspiracy known as the Chicago political machine.
      But, in his favor and on the plus side, he is the first governor in a row to not be indicted, convicted and jailed while still a governor.

      Yet.

  16. My partner and I were split up today and I was put on a truck with a girl from Chicago. I was telling her why I would never go there to which she replied how obsurd it is that citizens are denied the right to carry with such a high crime rate.

    This conversation was before reading this and the previous article. I am sure she will be happy when I pass the news on.

  17. “Illinois will not be New Jersey,” Todd Vandermyde told TTAG…

    Yeah, well we’ll see. I personally think that’s exactly what will happen. You think the shithead politicians that have kept gun prohibition in place all these years don’t have a plan B in place to stall this new development?

  18. If I may project myself a bit…

    I don’t know what the current bills look like, but the people of Illinois need to request their state level folks abolish the FOID card. And ensure that state preemption stays in. And abolish any waiting periods and purchase limits is they exist. The gun folks have Chicago and the governor by the man parts. Either they play along, or, at minimum, all FOID cards become carry permits. I seriously doubt that the court would set up constitutional carry in response to a failure to act by the legislature. Projection mode [/off]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *