Gun owners nationwide won big wen the Supreme Court handed down the Bruen decision declaring New York’s may-issue concealed carry permitting system unconstitutional. The court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that the Second Amendment effectively means what it says, and ended the two-part interest balancing test that courts had used to sidestep the Heller decision in Second Amendment court cases for ten-plus years.
The Bruen decision goes far beyond New York and will have implications for every state in the union. For deep blue states, however, it portends major changes in long-time gun control schemes.
For example, as a Land of Lincoln resident, I can see what it means for our state. If your state has a blue or purple tinge to it, you’ll probably see some similar changes.
But first, if you listen to the Gun Violence Prevention Political Action Committee (G-PAC), one of the best-funded anti-gun groups in Illinois, they claim it doesn’t change a thing. At the same time, the G-PAC press release reads like an intern wrote it after getting back from a long lunch at the local cannabis dispensary.
“The Supreme Court’s decision in the New York case does not threaten any of our Illinois gun laws. It explicitly affirms the constitutionality of concealed carry permit laws like the one Illinois adopted in 2013,” said Kathleen Sances, President & CEO of the Gun Violence Prevention PAC. “The ruling also recognizes that states may adopt a variety of regulations on who may own or carry guns and the types of guns that are lawful. We will continue to work for the effective enforcement of our existing laws and for new commonsense laws that are constitutional.”
Meanwhile, Illinois’ Attorney General Kwame Raoul makes similar claims.
“Today’s decision striking down New York’s statutory scheme does not affect Illinois’ concealed-carry laws or other gun safety measures, and the steps that we have taken as an office to prevent gun violence and build safe communities remain preserved. In fact, the Supreme Court’s opinion cites Illinois as being among those states whose laws are not affected by the decision.
“In the wake of the numerous occurrences of shocking gun violence that have taken place around the country, we continue to do all we can. My office vigorously defends Illinois’ gun safety laws, prosecutes gun trafficking cases and individuals making false statements on FOID applications, and supports programs to assist crime victims and prevent community violence. We are also working with law enforcement and community partners to develop a state-of-the-art crime-gun tracing database for the state of Illinois.”
Obviously he didn’t finish anywhere near the top of his law school class and neither did the junior staffer who wrote that.
Getting away from the wishful makebelieve of gun control activists, here’s what the Bruen decision will mean in the real world…eventually . . .
The FOID card is dead. There were no Firearm Owner ID cards back in the 1700s. Illinois adopted their FOID scheme in 1968 specifically to make gun ownership more difficult for African-Americans.
In fact, Guns Save Life has sought a summary judgement along those lines in our existing lawsuit challenging the FOID Act’s constitutionality. Given the speed at which the justice system operates, you won’t be surprised to learn the summary judgement briefs are due in November.
When the FOID Act is eventually struck from the books, expect off-the-charts screeching from Chicago and Springfield. Heck, our state’s cannabis dispensaries may see a run on product as gun-haters struggle to cope with the loss.
Gun and magazine bans will fall. We shall soon say “Bye Felicia!” to gun and magazine bans, like those on the books in Chicago, Highland Park, Aurora and Deerfield. In fact SCOTUS has already sent a gun ban case and a magazine ban case back to their respective circuit courts to decide in accordance with the Bruen decision.
Fewer legally prohibited locations. The Bruen decision outlines that government may prohibit carry in “sensitive” areas with historical precedent from the 1700 and 1800s. No doubt government attorneys will argue for a plethora of “sensitive” locations, but they don’t have any historical precedent to support most. And one definition of “sensitive location” we can all agree upon includes security screening with metal detectors.
Arbitrary bans on carrying guns on mass transit will be among the first to go in Illinois. Signs will also come down at parks, playgrounds and non-sensitive government facilities (like highway rest areas, libraries and community centers). Also, the prohibition on carry for special events and protests will also likely fail to meet strict scrutiny.
Homebrew gun crafting. Americans have been building guns at home without regulatory requirements to register them with the government or serialize them since the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock. Prairie State Governor Pritzker’s new “ghost gun” ban will face big legal hurdles to remain in effect.
The mandatory registration of private gun sales, due to take effect January 1, 2024 will also be on our agenda to chuck into the dust bin of history. People didn’t have to register private gun sales with the government in the 1700s or the 1800s. There’s no reason they should be forced to do so now.
Extensive training “requirements” to carry will be eliminated. We at Guns Save Life suspect the 16-hour mandated training requirement for concealed carry licenses may also meet the buzz saw, along with the exorbitant application fee of $153, not to mention the four months of processing time for permit applicants. These were clearly put in place to discourage as many citizens as possible from jumping through the legally required hoops. After all, how many states required all that before carrying a firearm outside the home back in the late 1700s?
Spoiler alert: NONE
Yes, Bruen noted that existing “shall issue” carry laws are constitutional. However, a footnote on page 30 may prove quite important in the coming challenges.
…That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.
That sounds like it was written with Illinois in mind.
Here’s the problem
politicians political hacks leading Illinois aren’t going to roll over and play nice. They only follow the rule of law when it suits them. Or when they have no other choice. They’re probably going to stubbornly thumb their noses at Bruen just like they thumb their noses as federal immigration laws.
It will be up to intrepid gun owners and groups like Guns Save Life, the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition and others to challenge these restrictive existing laws. While we have limited resources for court actions at GSL, we’ve already had people making donations towards funding those coming fights.
Democrats at the state capitol in Springfield have been known to ignore the courts and laws before. Our state’s political leaders may rationalize flipping SCOTUS the bird on Bruen as allowing them to delay the inevitable for a couple of years as the lawsuits wind through the courts. Even though Democrats’ own lawyers have told leaders of their caucus that gun bans are a non-starter in courts.
Rest assured, we’re going after the lowest-hanging fruit, focusing on laws that adversely impact the most residents first. Clearly, we have our work cut out for us, as do gun rights orgs in numerous other states in our union.
The bottom line is that the Bruen decision will ultimately make our nation safer for the law-abiding. After all, anything that restricts law-abiding citizens from exercising legal gun ownership and carrying firearms for self-defense makes the streets more dangerous for the good guys and safer for criminals.
And it’s working so well …
Despite Strict Gun Control, California Had The Most Active Shooter Incidents In 2021: FBI
The Second Amendment has always been rode hard and put up wet. And during all that time what has not been rode hard is Gun Control. For the vast majority of the time Gun Control is judge and jury while the Second Amendment resides in the accused seat.
Bottom line…It is way past time for Gun Control to sit in the accused seat and receive the death sentence History Confirms It Deserves.
CA Governor Newsom is the official sponsor of a brand-new Senate Bill 918, which tightens restrictions on CCW permit holders. Makes little sense, as anyone who passes CA’s already-stringent CADOJ requirements and somehow gets the Sheriff’s approval has already met a high bar. But hey…criminals, CCWs…potato, potatoe, amirite?
SB918 expands the State’s list of prohibited places to include public parks, public playgrounds, any business in which alcohol is sold and consumed (pretty much all restaurants), and any place where the public congregates with a permit (such as a parade, demonstration, Concerts-In-The-Park, etc). It also restricts any CCW holder from possessing more than two guns in public, which limits the ability to bring more than two guns even to the range for practice. The bill’s actual author (not Newsom, but a Democrat Rep) proudly exclaimed that this is specifically in response to the Bruen decision, to take advantage of Justice Thomas’ statement that the decision does not bar States from establishing “special areas”.
This SB918 bill is expected to be signed into law very soon, as it already has the Governor’s support. Look for another legal challenge from FPC, CRPA, GOC, et al, as it focuses solely on restricting the rights of persons who are proven to be law-abiding. Does absolutely nothing to address crime.
From Boch’s article above:
“…mandated training requirement for concealed carry licenses may also meet the buzz saw, along with the exorbitant application fee of $153, not to mention the four months of processing time for permit applicants.”
Only $153 and four months? Bwahahahahahaha!!!! Come to CA and get in line, and then complain about that cost and wait time. I wish it only cost me that little for mine…
Precisely *why* Cali is ripe for a challenge to that kind of crap.
Over $600 every 2 stinking years? I’d say $25 every 10 years is more reasonable.
Folks, *now* is the time to open your wallets and support the state efforts where you live to kill that garbage…
They are in for a shock when that clause of Thomas’s kicks their teeth in, in which he explicitly stated that everywhere could not be deemed a “sensitive place”.
I doubt it. The Dems can put up lawsuit after lawsuit just like we can and clog up the system so nothing gets done. Dems will never roll over and allow everyone to exercise their 2A rights no matter what any court says. People that vote for these libs get what they deserve. As long as states can regulate guns we’re going to have a hodgepodge of different laws from state to state just like a abortion.
Lawsuits are irrelevant to the USC sending Marshals after the violators.
I’m older than you Boch. Since CCL & Chiraq has “freedom” come I keep hearing how horrible Illinois is. There’s much worse places. Headed for Indiana in the future where freedom(and live babies)are common…Chiraq destroys everything!
Went to Wisconsin. You will miss a couple things but not near as much as you think.
all of illinois’ border states have better life quality.
All good, but I crossed over into carrying anyplace where I don’t have submit to search or gonthroigh metal detectors. I don’t care what the signs or the laws say about it.
The best way to beat these people is at the polis by insisting on voter integrity and NOT voting for these people. I had to go get a lab test a few days ago and had to show my ID license and insurance card even though I have been to that same lab over the years many times. So, what is the big deal about voter ID. It’s a slap in the face to minorities and others when people use the excuse that it is too hard for them to register properly to vote. If it’s too hard for some people then you help them to do it not let anyone who wants to vote, vote. Leftists have an interesting way of thinking which seldom involves common sense, logic or the facts. Forget about ethics or morality as those characteristics are totally nonexistent. Like little kids’ self-gratification is the only thing that counts with them besides control and power.
It’s not a big deal…unless yer a leftdim(you may steal this description). ILLANNOY is not fixable. Fight the power!
Yeah, I hopefully predicted many a good outcome from Heller. Still waitin’ for that.
Bruen is a better-crafted decision than Heller, so that gives me (SLIGHT) hope. Our blue states and our liberal federal district courts have been p***ing on Heller since it was adopted; I have no doubt they will continue that with Bruen.
In several YEARS (soonest), we’ll see to what extent the states, and the federal district courts and courts of appeal, actually READ Bruen and pay attention to it. IF we elect legislators who respect the 2A, the trend of pro-2A progress in laws (“constitutional carry”, etc.) will continue. That is more likely to have immediate effect – and also establishes a historical record about what the states think about the 2A. By my count, we are at a MAJORITY of states having some form of “constitutional carry”, and that number is going to increase.
NONE of this will happen quickly. The old saying used to be that “the wheels of justice grind slow; but they grind exceedingly fine”. I think modern practice makes that, “the wheels of justice grind at a glacial pace; sometimes people pay attention”. Anyone who thinks this is going to have any immediate impact on day-to-day gun rights is smokin’ too much wacky tobacky.
John, you missed a big one.
I’m a long haul trucker and resident of Alabama with an AL CCW. According to IL law at present I cannot apply for an IL CCW because something about AL’s laws are not “similar enough” to IL law. IL also won’t honor my AL permit. There’s about half a dozen states listed at handgunlaw.us that IL will issue CCWs to and AL ain’t on the list.
IL wants to punish me for living in a state that doesn’t have enough of IL’s idea of good gun laws are.
This violates Bruen any number of ways: barriers to cross-border carry were unthinkable in the early federal period and did exist in the south during Reconstruction but only for horrifically racist as fuck reasons – which we can prove.
At Bruen footnote 9 there’s a ban on any carry permit process involving excessive fees or delays. Making me score permits from a dozen-plus states to carry in the whole lower 48 definitely qualifies on both counts.
But there’s another glaring problem nobody but me is talking about yet…the 1999 US Supreme Court decision in Saenz v Roe. This case bans cross-border discrimination in any area of law, not just gun carry. It also tells lower courts what to do if they encounter such discrimination:
Probably are aware of this but in Illinois any out of state resident that may lawfully carry a concealed weapon in their home state may carry with in the passenger compartment of their motor vehicle. Understanding does not help much at fuel and bathroom stops.
Probably are aware of this but in Illinois any out of state resident that may lawfully carry a concealed weapon in their home state may carry with in the passenger compartment of their motor vehicle. Understand does not help much at fuel and bathroom stops.
“The politicians (political hacks) leading Illinois aren’t going to roll over and play nice. They only follow the rule of law when it suits them. Or when they have no other choice. They’re probably going to stubbornly thumb their noses at Bruen just like they thumb their noses as federal immigration laws.”
Exactly what happened in New York with Gov. Kathy Hochul and Democrat majority Legislature. Now we have to deal with what has been referred to as the “SAFE Act 3.0”. We’ve got more hoops to jump through than ever before! Along with more “sensitive places.” Good luck Illinois!
See how the injunction hearings go over the next 3-4 weeks. But I would imagine most other blue states are waiting to see how far NY can push it before committing to going that far when pushback can have hard limits imposed.
“People didn’t have to register private gun sales with the government in the 1700s or the 1800s.” There weren’t any NICS checks, serial numbers, “suitable for sporting purposes”, scary color/physical features apoplexy, .50 caliber hysteria, et el back then either. Are you saying those will go away?? Thinking you may be a little over gassed on zeal. However, our nationally beloved simpleton Forrest Gump did observe in a meme, “In 1775, the British demanded we surrender our firearms. We shot them.” Maybe hope springs eternal????
FOID card, phooey.
I want a tattoo of numbers on my wrist.
Let freedom wring
“Freedom: What the Bruen Ruling Portends For Illinois and Similar Anti-Gun States”
“Bruen” kicked the red ant hill. Each and every ant will have to be hunted down and killed, individually.
“Bruen” is also the lawyer’s wet dream; mucho, mucho dinero to be mined.
“Bruen” was a great smack in the mouth for anti-gunners. However, many of us will not live to see it fully implemented. The lower courts (state and federal) will drag this out, hoping for the Dims to expand the federal courts, and overturn every decision they don’t like, no matter how “settled” the precedent.
Note that the 9th Circus remanded “Bonta” to the trial court, demanding new filings. The 9th essentially started the law suit all over, telling the judge who wrote the original decision based on the criteria later declared by the SC. The judge will again rule as he did, state will appeal, appeals court will likely rule an assault weapons ban constitutional (based on the “balancing” theory), the decision, whichever way it goes, will be appealed to the 9th. A three judge panel at the 9th will rule, then that decision will be appealed for an en banc hearing, then the full ninth will judge the assault ban to be constitutional, then the 9th will again be appealed to the SC.
We better get accustomed to the “long march”, throughout the nation.
Inflation Reduction Act Passes: Senate Approves $430 Billion Climate And Healthcare Bill
All 50 Senate Democrats voted for the bill and all 50 Republicans voted against it, with Vice President Kamala Harris, as president of the Senate, casting the tie-breaking vote.
Still needs to pass the house.
The legislation will next head to the House, which is expected to return from a summer recess on Friday
The House vote is a foregone conclusion.
87,000 new IRS agents. Just what we need now, right?
They won’t be there to sit and watch TV. At least not most of them.
They’ll be coming after the little guy, you and me.
The democrats and the left are the party of the uber rich. They’ll need those new agents to keep their boots on the working poors necks.
The IRS has also been stockpiling gunms and ammo. Lots of it. The f’ing IRS!
The race is on; can the Democrats destroy the country before the rest of us can kick enough of them from office to save it? 92 days and counting!
So, assuming the Illannoy FOID is found unconstitutional. What are the chances they would be forced to refund all the money we’ve had to spend on it over the years?
Slim to none.
” Illinois’ Attorney General Kwame Raoul makes similar claims” – fingers in ears laaaalaaaalaaa
WTF is a Kwame?
Hoping you see freedom sooner rather than later John. I’m hoping we all do. It seems like endless time consuming lawsuits on the horizon.
“The mandatory registration of private gun sales”
Are there ANY UBC lawsuits in play anywhere in the US at this time?
Hark! Where are dacian the Dunderhead and MINOR Miner49er? Must be hiding some where…
Maybe they’re busy pushing up each other’s stool. Trying to get on the monkeypox train.
Nothing those two nitwits would do could surprise me.
What I want is 1 of these disarmament clowns to show proof their schemes will somehow actually prevent the next nut case from shooting up a store/school/shopping mall, etc. Or that their ridiculous ideas will somehow actually stop criminals from getting weapons.
Even if their wettest dreams came true and they managed to get rid of every firearm in the US today, do they not know the world is awash in firearms. Do these fools not realize there are enough firearms floating around out in the world to arm every man woman and child? Go to little back water villages in south western Asia. Every male tall enough to keep both ends of an AK off the ground has 1. Go to craphole camps in Central America or up in the Amazon basin and anyone who can scrape together a little cash has a gun. Go into the former Soviet countries in the Balkans. Firearms are mor common than indoor toilets.
That being the case do the fools not understand real weapons of war would be shipped into the us wholesale if the criminals couldn’t get what they want locally? Do the idiots not understand how any prohibition only makes the item or product more desirable to many who would not normally want it?
Do the idiots not understand how useless their permit schemes are in doing anything to prevent criminals from carrying or obtaining guns? Are they truly ignorant of the fact that many who would carry a weapon for self defense will even when denied the legal right to do so?
They understand it all, and don’t give a crap. Anything they can do to disarm law abiding citizens, they will do.
These are the same people who think it’s useless to have drugs be illegal and want to legalize all of them, but guns, no.
“What I want is 1 of these disarmament clowns to show proof their schemes will somehow actually prevent the next nut case from shooting up a store/school/shopping mall, etc.”
“They” have proven the point, over and over. Here’s how it works: any decrease in violent crime is due solely to gun control laws. Any increase in violent crime is due solely to the lack of a sufficient number of gun control laws.
day late, shy a buck here, but it feels necessary to mention the legal footwork sustained by isra.
if you’re an ella noyan please consider becoming a member.
“…That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”
Well, that makes the Oregon State Police approach of taking their sweet time to do background checks unconstitutional. They claim they’re “waiting on other agencies” to supply them with information so they can determine if some misdemeanor from forty years ago involved domestic violence, which is B.S. because that would be in the court records which are public.