Seventh Circuit Lets Illinois Concealed Carry Stand

SAF logo courtesy saf.org

From the Second Amendment Foundation:

BELLEVUE, WA – 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.”

52 Responses to Seventh Circuit Lets Illinois Concealed Carry Stand

  1. avatarGC says:

    Feinstein and the rest of the gun grabbers must be clutching their pearls about now.

  2. avatarjwm says:

    The courts are were we win the major fights. The individual right to own guns has been finally affirmed and now the individual right to carry outside the home has been affirmed. The rest is fine tuning and more court time.

    I have sent money to the SAF for this reason. Also for this reason I’m holding off any more funds to the NRA until I see them grow a set and get into the fight.

    • avatarIn Memphis says:

      I finally caved a few months ago and signed up for the NRAs easy pay life membership. But honestly, Ill be damned if I give them much more than $25 a month. I will however, after reading this, make a donation to the 2A Foundation.

      • avatarIn Memphis says:

        A few weeks ago***

      • avatarLeo Atrox says:

        $25 per quarter (3 months) for easy pay, isn’t it?

        SAF is a great organization that has done a remarkable amount of good in a very short amount of time. Now if only we could get past these magazine limitations and “assault weapons” things.

        • avatarIn Memphis says:

          It is but apparently theres a monthly option. Im still waiting in my membership packet

    • avatarBrian says:

      The courts tend to reflect an attenuated form of public opinion. The work groups like the NRA did in the 90s on the political/cultural front to normalize firearm ownership and discredit gun control (not to mention encouraging a lot of pro-2A legal scholarship) helped set the stage for the victories in the court.

      That is not to say that the SAF isn’t also great, it is, but without all the states already allowing concealed carry there is a good chance this case comes out the other way.

      That said, I agree the NRA’s efforts this time seem sluggish and tone deaf, and that scares me. The NRA may need some new blood.

    • avatarChuck in IL says:

      150 bones for a life membership to SAF. Thats money well spent, they are fully responsible for this decision.

      • avatarrightontheleftcoast says:

        I am doing same, thanks for the reminder on how to get in on the ground floor.

        • avatarrightontheleftcoast says:

          Done.

          Less than the cost for a day at the range-
          ie: 8 boxes of .223 which I cant find anywhere anyway…

          What will you tell your kids when they ask you,
          “Daddy what did you do in the Great War on Guns?”

  3. avatareugene says:

    so much win… SAF is quickly becoming my favorite 2A non-profit org. Maybe I should’ve given them my money instead of lifetime NRA membership

    • avatarLeo Atrox says:

      Go for broke. SAF, NRA, GOA, and any others you can think of. The stronger they all are, the better off we’ll be. My name is on all their rosters, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

    • avatarDave says:

      One needs both to lobby and to litigate. The NRA and the SAF are both absolutely necessary.

  4. avatarBrian S says:

    curious if Ill-annoy-me will react with laws that make it extrememly difficult to get a license like has been done in Cali and elsewhere

    • avatarPwrserge says:

      Unlikely, there is a solid block in the state house that would rather have constitutional carry than a may issue system. They came to the floor with a deal last year and got nowhere. Now they have far more leverage. If they run out the clock, they get what they want.

    • avatarMark N. says:

      The current proposal, which came out shortly after Moore was originally decided, was a shall issue system with no carve out for Chicago. I haven’t heard anything more about the legislation since, but as Pwrserge states, the pro-gun forces have tremendous leverage, because a bill cannot pass without them, and if no bill passes, the Court of Apppeal will issue an injunction barring Illinois from enforcing its carry ban–i.e., constitutional carry.

    • avatarChuck in IL says:

      We have the votes to get what we want. Time is our friend, if we don’t get what we want we get Constitutional carry. I feel we should push for more, such as getting rid of prohibition of such things as suppressors and short barreled rifles. The Libtards would howl like a banshee if someone amended the bill with those items.

  5. avatarLance says:

    Some good news very welcomed indeed.

    • avatarMr Pierogie says:

      Somebody should inform the judges on the east coast. They seem confused as to what the Constitution actually says.

  6. avatarCrunkleross says:

    Great news! Especially the distinction between keep and bear. But don’t forget the Japanese proverb, “After victory, tighten your helmet cords”.

  7. The ball is in Ms. Madigan’s court now. She can either appeal to the Supreme Court of just let it stand as is. This is comes down on the same day that the assistant State’s Attorney for Cook Co stated that they can just ignore this, because, you know, they don’t like it, or something: http://capitolfax.com/2013/02/20/alvarez-vows-to-ignore-federal-court-ruling/

    Silly Machine statists, laws are for the little people.

    Illustrating Chicagoland Idiocy, Mayhem and Stupidity at heyjackass.com

    • avatarMark N. says:

      Loved that link. I think Cook County needs a new prosecutor; if he trys to prosecute people after the injuction goes into effect, he will find himself standing before a very pssed off federal judge asking him if he brought his toothbrush. An injunction is a court order, and here the order will enjoin the State of Illinois from enforcing a particular law. The FEderal Court clearly has jurisdiction to enforce its orders against the state on an issue of interpretation of the United States Constitution. As a prosecutor, he is an agent of the state, and directly subject to the injunction.

    • avatartdiinva says:

      This is exactly what the Segregationists claimed after the Brown vs Board of Education decision came down. Ms. Madigan is running the risk of some big law suits if she ignores a federal court. Illinois public officials could be jailed for contempt if they violate Court ordered conceal carry. I hope they stand in the “school house door” before the next time I pass through the state. When the 180 day clock runs out I will just drive on through Illinois with my gun in the holster.

      Exit question for discussion: Would you trade your right to own a AR for national constitutional concealed carry?

      • avatarRalph says:

        No. I don’t like ARs, even though I own them. It’s not giving up ARs that bothers me, it’s giving up rights, or trading them like baseball cards.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          Just to make clear, I wasn’t proposing this trade, I just wanted to start a discussion.

      • avatarChuck in IL says:

        No. Shall issue (or better) will become the law the land, one state at a time. No need to give up rights for anything, especially something you will get anyway.

  8. avatar16V says:

    My concern (seriously) is if CC does happen.

    It will be bad enough in Il with a clearly defined set of rules and licensing. Without rules? Well, they can always charge you with something. Always.

    If the local politicos and/or gendarmes decide they don’t want you to carry, then they will find some reason to hook you and book you. You may beat the rap, but you won’t beat the ride. Especially in Cook County…

    • avatarAnon in CT says:

      Threatening, Menacing, Brandishing, Disturbing the Peace, etc.

      Failing to pay your Crook Cty bribes on time.

      • avatarHasdrubal says:

        Most people plead out before trial. If this stopped, the court system would be completely overwhelmed. It’s a prosecutor’s nightmare, the idea of every last petty case demanding a full trial by jury.

        If a corrupt government takes that approach, this would be a peaceful way to shut them dowm.

        • avatar16V says:

          I do so agree in the perfect world. In the real world we all operate in, not everyone has the intestinal fortitude to survive having everything they own and everyone they have ever known, confiscated.

          Hence, the reality of plead outs.

    • avatarMark N. says:

      Haven’t you heard? Chicago Police Commissioner McCarthy has stated that a MWG will be treated as a criminal, and can expect to get shot if he draws his gun.

  9. avatarRightYouAreKen says:

    Keep on keepin on SAF! Got a call from one of your fundraisers this week and was happy to donate again. Was a pleasure to tell the lady what a great job they were doing. Go get ‘em!

  10. avatarGregolas says:

    YEEEE-HAW! Way to go SAF! Chicago & Springfield, read it and weep!

  11. avatarWA_2A says:

    The next step is to render gun-free zones unconstitutional; then, may-issue states; finally, require all 50 states to adopt constitutional carry.

    Just the way the founding fathers would have liked it.

  12. avatarSome Guy says:

    Great news! Shows the wisdom of using whatever method is the best for the times, right now the courts – go get ‘em. Don’t be so hard on the NRA, while historically hesitant, they have been showing some muscle in this regard lately and good luck to them. Huzza!

  13. avatarJohn says:

    This is why I support the SAF.

    I’m hoping Illinois won’t now have to go through rounds of ‘unduly burdensome’ laws in response to this ruling.

    • avatarSome Guy says:

      They’ll probably try but be beaten down piece by piece, it’s really when it gets to the stage of fines and contempt of court citations that they fold and start on something else. Liberals are like rust – they never sleep.

  14. avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    The pic at the top is, well, weak. Super-weak.

    What we need is another pic of a smiling Alan Gottlieb, totally rockin’ a bow tie in his sartorial splendor.

  15. avatarKvjavs says:

    I kind of hope our legislators keep fighting each, then we can get stuck with constitutional carry.

    Would be a huge slap in the face for the Chicago Machine.

    As an Illinois resident, this is the best news I’ve heard all day.

    • avatarMike says:

      I spoke with someone from the Illinois Conceal Carry federation and they warn against constitutional conceal carry as every municipality would lay down some pretty draconian ordinances if nothing is done.

  16. avatarMark N. says:

    Madigan will have no chice but to appeal if a political deal is not cut. Her real problem is that her time to petition for cert is running out, according to SAF. I don’t see that as much of a problem, though, she can file her petition now, and then withdraw it if a deal is cut before the June deadline.

  17. avatartdiinva says:

    We live a crazy world. We have one set of public officials who are taking away their citizens’ constitutional rights while at the same time the Courts are expanding gun rights. What happens when irresistable force of blue state gun control meets the immovable object of the Federal Court system?

    I think pro-Second Amendment groups should be engaged in a PSYOP campaign directed against blue state legislatures asking them the question “do you really want to pursue your anti-Second Amendment agenda and run the risk of having SCOTUS giving you less control over guns then you had before you passed your laws?” From some blue staters status quo ante might best they can get.

  18. avatarMike says:

    As an Illinois resident all I can say is SUCK IT LISA MADIGAN!!!

  19. avatarMark N. says:

    This is an important case, butnot all news is good news. First, there was a dissent to the denial of the petition for en banc hearing, joined by four of the justices contending that a right to carry outside thehome should not be recognized by any but SCOTUS, and listing all the possible (and possibly constitutional) restriction Illinois might impose on the issuance of carry permits and the places where carry would be allowed, relying heavily on the Kachalsky decision from NY (2d Circuit)that upheld “may issue.”
    Second, the 10th Circuit, sitting in Denver, upheld a lower court decision denying Peterson’s claim that Colorado violated his second amnedment rights by not issuing nonresident carry prmits or giving reciprocity to his other licenses. Peterson claimed that the conjunction of the state law with a Denver city ordinance banning the open carrying or firearms (legal elsewhere in the state) barred him from carrying during his frequent visits to Denver. Ignoring the fact that this was a “no carry” case like Moore, the court treated it as a an attack on the permissibility of concealed carry bans–and found them constitutionally permissible.

    • avatarDave says:

      According to an article in todays Wall Street Journal, “A bigger question not addressed by the Supreme Court, experts say, is whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home at all. The 10th Circuit suggested Friday that Mr. Peterson may have succeeded had he challenged a Denver ordinance that restricted the open carrying of firearms—rather than the just the issue of concealed weapons.”

  20. I have a conceal carry license, and with state reciprocity through the two states I took state exams in, I can legally carry in all states except New York, Illinois, and Calif Ironic that these are the states with most gun crimes…..it’s because gun owning law-abiding citizens can’t carry guns…only criminals can

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.