CT ct-met-concealed-gun-challenge 03.jpg

That’s what today’s court ruling seems to indicate. If you’ll remember, the Illinois supreme court ruled last week that the right to keep and bear arms as enumerated in the bill of rights extends outside the home. A radical idea to be sure. What’s the practical effect of that? It’s this: “A Cook County judge reversed herself Monday and dismissed weapons charges against a Chicago man after a recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling that called part of the state’s gun law unconstitutional.” The defendant, Deafalla Haddad, bought a .45 and began carrying it after he was attacked in his car. In Cook County. Illinois. When he was stopped for speeding in December . . .

 

As chicagotribune.com reports, he informed the officer that he was packing the .45 in a holster and was promptly arrested and charged with unlawful use of a weapon.

Under Illinois statutes at the time, carrying a concealed firearm was illegal. But in February 2013, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down parts of the state law, and in March Fakhoury filed a motion to dismiss the charges against Haddad.

Judge Ellen Mandeltort denied that motion last week. But that was before the supremes announced their ruling.

At Monday’s hearing, defense attorney Matt Fakhoury asked Mandeltort to reconsider the request in light of the Supreme Court decision. She agreed and found the case against Haddad violated his Second Amendment rights. “This court finds that the charges (against Haddad) are unconstitutional,” Mandeltort said from the bench.

Haddad has one of Illinois’ ludicrous firearms owner identification cards, but no carry permit. Illinois’ new concealed carry law hasn’t been implemented yet. So to the extent that this ruling – in Cook County, mind you – sets a precedent, Illinoisans wouldn’t seem to need no steenkin’ carry permit. Of course, you may want to think twice before testing that yourself. Still, that sound you just heard was Rahm Emanuel’s head exploding like that seen in Scanners.

Recommended For You

52 Responses to BREAKING: Illinois Becomes Sixth Constitutional Carry State?

  1. If anyone can honestly tell me that they saw this coming at this time last year, please stand up. I’m wonderfully shell-shocked.

      • I was stationed in Germany (K-Town) at that time. It was quite surprising, the DDR most of all !

        One by one former East Bloc countries quit playin the Commie game, changed sides and opened borders in some form or another. The Dominoes began to fall.

        • Cool! I was stationed near Frankfurt then, but we use to run trains in and out of K-town all the time. It was a crazy time when the wall came down.

    • And to think I used to like drinking at Hugo’s-at least when it wasn’t crowded. Then I graduated to the quieter confines of Bistro Zinc.

  2. Whoa, Tex!

    He was arrested before the July 9th passage of the FCCA.

    While I think a *very* strong case could be made (and frankly, I’ve carried myself now and then since this case was released) for the same conditions existing now as before the FCCA was passed.

    Why? Because the ISP has not gotten courses approved, much less applications for those wishing to get a license, much less issued any licenses. In other words, nothing has changed in IL as compared to the conditions we lived in that were declared unconstitutional.

    Yeah, charges might well be dismissed if you get caught carrying.

    However, in the meantime, you could be arrested and spend a bunch of cash on an attorney to defend the charge and eventually get it tossed out.

    Because of this, we at Guns Save Life are NOT recommending carry in IL *at this time*.

    John

    ETA: I don’t have time for a long-winded explanation tonight. The bottom line is, read the footnote in the Aguilar decision that says it only is ruling on the pre-FCCA amended UUW statute in IL.

    • Exactly! Came here to post this. We can’t take this as an indication of what this same judge would do if somebody were caught packing tomorrow.

      What we need is clarification from one or more of the county prosecutors, or something at the state AG level. Yes, that latter will be the southbound product of a northbound male bovine BUT we can then take it apart and see what makes it tick. If the “core” argument is verifiably BS we can go from there. At least some of the county-level prosecutors will swing our way, we can compare their stuff with the ones that don’t.

  3. It’s a bit of a legal clusterf**k here in Illinois, at least until the official CCW law goes into effect Jan 1st. Makes for some interesting scenarios, but don’t think we’re all OC’ing down Michigan Avenue. There is plenty of legal gray area. No one knows what’s what anymore!

  4. I would not want to be a test case in my neck of the woods. It may be ‘legal’, but if caught with weapon in my area of Illinois, I would certainly end up in jail.

    • Why do “they have to do that in California now”? The catalyst for this was an Illinois Supreme Court decision, which has very little bearing on California law.

    • It may be too late for that. Prior to Heeler, the Cal Supreme Court ruled that the 2A did not apply to the States, and upheld the “may issue” CCW system as not violative of the California State Constitution. That’s why all the litigation has taken place in the federal courts, as they are not bound by the California court’s interpretation of federal law.

      • So if the California Supreme Court says that the 2A does not apply in that state, effectively nullifying it with the implied endorsement of the Justice Department, what’s the Federal beef with Missouri? Or Montana? Or other nullifying states?

        • Yeah, and for some strange reason they insisted that Sheriff Joe ignore Federal immigration law, but were not so pleased when Sheriff Joe said he would also ignore Federal firearms laws. Really weird how things like that have been happening with far greater frequency in the last five years than in any time in recent history.

  5. I don’t know, dude has a foreign, possibly Arab sounding name…

    Seriously, good for Deafalla Haddad! These people sticking their necks out and then lawyering up will help all of us.

  6. wow this is extremely misleading. change the title now.
    “Prosecutors and other observers said the ruling does not give gun owners a green light to carry concealed guns now. Under a deadline from the federal appeals court, Illinois amended its gun laws — including its statute on aggravated unlawful use of a weapon — in July to permit concealed carry. This new law was specifically exempted in the high court’s ruling. ”

    “State rifle association Executive Director Richard Pearson agreed, saying that although a licensed gun owner may eventually prevail in court, he or she could still be arrested and charged as the law now stands.”

  7. Please amend this article before you get people arrested… he was charged under the old statute, not the new one. That’s why it got thrown out.

    You can still be convicted for violating the new statute.

    • No doubt you will be arrested. The defense that would be asserted is one is free to carry until there is the ability top obtain a license under the new law–and at this point, it is impossible to even apply for a license much less get one. This falls under the legal rubric of “impossibility”–I am relieved of the obligation to comply with the new law since it is impossible to do so.

  8. Well this illustrates the insanity of our criminal justice system. One moment, someone is a committing a “felony”. The next moment (after the Illinois State Supreme Court Decision), that same person is no longer committing a felony. Same person, same situation, same activity, but one moment a “felony” and the next moment “legal”.

    The problem: we no longer have a criminal justice system. A citizen who has never harmed anyone, who is not harming anyone, and who has no intent to harm anyone, is NOT a criminal, period. Whether or not the citizen happens to have a handgun in a holster strapped on their hip, visible or concealed, is irrelevant.

    Just look at the matter at hand. How sad that we are guessing/debating what the Illinois police, prosecutors, and courts might do! Heck, they don’t even know what they might do. That is not a nation of justice and laws.

    We have to take our States and country back from the legislatures, Justices, attorneys, and law enforcement who have run roughshod over every citizen in our nation.

    • That’s the essence of much that is wrong with modern society. The law is force, nothing more, nothing less. Use of force is justified against a person that is actively trying to unjustly deprive another of life, liberty, or property. No other use of force is moral. Since the act of peacefully packing a weapon in a public place does not harm the person, property, or liberty of anyone else, then morally it’s not a crime and use of force is not justified.

      Then, of course, there is a the world the way it is at the moment, in which the law is used as an offensive weapon more often than for it’s moral purpose as a defensive weapon..

  9. IL lawmakers will work quicky and efficiently (haha) to put a new law that they can enforce on the books after this little debacle.

  10. Question: does Illinois’ recently passed concealed carry law prohibit open carry? If not, then it sure sounds to me like Illinois is no longer criminalizing open carry.

    As for concealed carry, I imagine some will argue that falls under the new concealed carry law enacted this past July. And yet as another person pointed out it is impossible to comply with the licensing part of the new law for at least another 6 months. I imagine a person who carried concealed without a license and followed all the other details of the law would have a good defense in court — at least until licenses were finally available.

    • There is a FAQ on the Illinois State Police website. One question asks about allowing open-carrying. The answer given was: No. A handgun carried on or about a person must be concealed from view of the public or on or about a person within a vehicle.

      To me it seems that open-carry is now alright, given the ruling from the Illinois Supreme Court last Thursday.

  11. Its amazing that a judge, has to be told that a law or charge is unconstitutional. What is different about the facts of the case before and after the supreme court ruling? Nothing! This is ridiculous. The lower court judge needs permision from a senior court to interperet the law, and make a ruling? I realize that they are people like you and me, not supermen with superior intellect, but how is it that something that is so clear and makes so much sense is subjected to so much resistance? I am happy that the charge was dropped, but incredulous that it was necessary.

    • “but how is it that something that is so clear and makes so much sense is subjected to so much resistance?”

      Because there are greedy officials that would use the law to control rather than to protect. And they are legion.

  12. If you were to be arrested and charged for carrying a firearm whether concealed or open, you would have right to sue the authorities both personally and professionally AND to bring criminal charges against them pursuant to one or more of the following USC for violation of civil rights UNDER COLOR OF LAW:

    18 USC Sections 241, 242
    42 USC Sections 1983, 1985, 1986

    Yes, you would first have to spend a night of two in jail, suffer the expense of employing a lawyer (unless you can get the court to appoint one for you that you trust [I don’t trust any of them so it wouldn’t matter who my attorney was, I would still control the strategy etc.) and have to show up for several court appearances but I bet if you were courageous and stood your ground, you’d win in the end.

    This latest case from the Ill Supreme Court follows the decision in Moore v. Madigan which ALSO stipulated that the right to bear arms for defense of self and others extends outside the home.

    Nothing worthwhile is free or risk free and that goes for the exercise of Freedoms.

  13. More good court news from a bit earlier TTAG had this coverage earlier in the summer:  

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/06/foghorn/judge-blocks-ms-open-carry-law-over-fears-of-blood-in-the-streets/

    But missed this follow up story: 

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/30/mississippi-high-court-upholds-open-carry-gun-law/

    With the bigger news of the day on 8/30 on our new BATF leader and the new executive proclamation:

     http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/08/foghorn/breaking-atf-to-extend-cleo-sign-off-to-every-person-listed-on-gun-trusts/

    Though we now have open carry without the good in the streets prediction.

  14. At some point- Illinois Politicians and Other Above the Law Types will Have to Follow the Constitution of the United States. For Much too Long I’ll. ( Chicago in Partcular) has Violated the Rights of the Citizens! The Party is over we “will” prevail,enough Communism in America!

Leave a Reply

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