IL SC to rule on 2A cases on 9/12/13

[press1280]

http://www.state.il.us/court/Supreme...013/091213.pdf

The Aguilar case deals with the same statute struck down in Moore. It will be interesting what happens if they split with Moore and leave the door open for a SCOTUS appeal. While I don't think this plaintiff is who we want before SCOTUS, it may be that the IL statute(which will be defunct in its current form) involving a total public ban on carry IS what they want.

Opinion should be found on this link: http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinion...nt_supreme.asp

Oral arguments can be found here: http://www.state.il.us/court/media/On_Demand.asp You'll need the 2012 page for Aguilar orals.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

I'm not sure what this case is about, and your first 2 links are 404 errors.

[Al Norris]

I corrected the first two links.

The orals in WMV are here: http://multimedia.illinois.gov/court...112_112116.wmv. In MP3 format: http://multimedia.illinois.gov/court...112_112116.mp3

[MLeake]

Decision has been published:

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinion...013/112116.pdf

Illinois Supreme Court agrees with 7CA, says RKBA applies outside the home.

They also said reasonable restrictions would be acceptable, but bans are not. It remains to be seen what they will consider "reasonable."

[CowTowner]

Thanks for posting this. What a great read and, IMHO, a decision that should set the Illinois law makers back on their collective heals just a bit.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

CowTowner, it's not really Illinois lawmakers who are reeling from this, it's just the ones from Cook County and especially Chicago.

Beyond Cook lawmakers are, by and large, strong gun rights supporters regardless of party affiliation. The problem is Cook County legislators have the seats of power in the legislature, and have control over which bills make it to the floor for a vote. There was actually strong support in both houses for concealed carry in Illinois prior to the 7th Circuit Court decision, however the vote was just a few shy of the supermajority (2/3) needed to preempt home rule in the House and the Senate President never let that house even vote on it.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

"Again, in the form presently before us, section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) categorically prohibits the possession and use of an operable firearm for self defense outside the home. In other words, section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) amounts to a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that is specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as construed by the United States Supreme Court. In no other context would we permit this, and we will not permit it here either."

Glad to see that the ILSC ruled that. Under Chicago's now-defunct ordinance I couldn't even legally possess, let alone carry, an operable firearm in my yard or even the fully enclosed back stairway of my 2-flat.

Btw, that "Justice Thomas" who wrote the opinion is none other than Bob Thomas, who was a kicker for the Chicago Bears in the 1970s and early 1980s. One of his former teammates, Alan Page, is now a Supreme Court Justice in Minnesota. Just a bit of useless trivia for you guys!

[Jim March]

So what is the status of either concealed or open carry right this minute now that this decision is out?

For adults of course!

This is a separate decision from anything the 7th Circuit published. The IL Supremes also separately have a right to strike IL laws on constitutional grounds.

Exactly what laws got struck down today!?

[press1280]

I didn't think about that.....you'd have to assume no one else can be convicted of the UUW under the IL state courts, at least until the new law goes into effect. This would mean de facto FOID carry. I know CA7 will be hearing this next month, but the state courts are now bound by this. They weren't bound by CA7.

[Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret]

FOID carry now.

[zxcvbob]

Does it also mean my MN carry permit is good there -- at least temporarily? (concealed or open?)

[Luger_carbine]

Also, what I find kind of funny, is that after the Moore decision, Paul Castiglione, policy director for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office, told lawmakers there is no need for a new law.

“Only the Illinois Supreme Court can declare a statue from (the legislature) unconstitutional,” Castiglione told lawmakers Tuesday. “I heard (someone) say that after 180 days our UUW (unlawful use of weapon) statute is unconstitutional. Not so.”

OK Paulie... ya got yer wish

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Castiglione is funny though:

But Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez’s doesn’t see things that way. “After 180 days, anyone who decided, for example, to walk down Michigan Avenue in Chicago carrying an AK-15 would be subject to arrest and prosecution for violating the [Unlawful Use of Weapons Act,]” said Cook County Assistant State's Attorney Paul Castiglione.

Anyone here have an AK-15?

[Jim March]

Big discussion thread here:

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index...pic=41252&st=0

Quick takeaways:

* The various county prosecutors appear to be huddled in meetings in a panic and are not, so far, responding to the public. Even the ones that normally DO talk to people.

* The best guess from educated lay-folk on the ground is, the IL Supremes judged the law unconstitutional as it existed a couple of years ago. The decision also notes that the situation has changed and specifically doesn't rule on the constitutionality of the current situation.

* Put another way, "X was unconstitutional but we're not ruling on X+Y" where "Y" is the alteration (read: new law) that creates a concealed carry permit. So this is NOT a situation where the text of the old law is struck, even though it's declared unconstitutional, because it no longer has the same meaning today ("total carry ban") now that a carry system has been stuck on top of it.

* Put yet another way: the new law wasn't written to strike or change a single word of the existing law. It simply added the CCW system on top and says "now that this exists there IS a way to carry (when permits are available of course!) there is now a valid exception to the "total carry ban" that was previously described".

* Sigh

* But wait, there's more!

* People over the age of 21 and committed a "pure carry crime" (no other crimes going on at the same time!) who were either a visitor to the state or the holder of a valid FOID card can probably go back and get their conviction struck. And since the conviction violated their civil rights they may be able to get payback. To quote George Takei: OH...MY!

* This ruling DOES express a strong personal civil right to defense outside the home. This right exists right now. Is it being violated by the current non-existence of permits because they ain't set up yet? Probably! Does that mean pack right now? Well you'll get to find out whether or not the lower courts find that unconstitutional and let you skate. Nobody knows. County prosecutors are freaking the hell out trying to figure out what to do. Expect variances in policies!

* Does this ruling also impact the sky-high permit fees and extreme restrictions such as "no bus carry" (clearly aimed at the economic class that rides busses)? No idea.

* Does this ruling mean we can sue for no-cost open carry? Who knows!

* What is the effect on visitors from out of state who have a CCW permit from their own state? Unknown.

* Will this ruling get cited in the Woolard appeal to the Nine Robes In DC? I hope so.

That's about all I've been able to glean from any source yet.

[CowTowner]

Does this decision have any reaching effects on other states? Say California or Hawaii and their carry laws?
I realize this is the IL SC and not a federal court ruling. But can it be used as cite/precedence in other ongoing federal cases?
If so, how much weight would it carry?

[Jim March]

Welll...I don't see it as being hugely more useful than the 7th Circuit opinion in Moore we already had. We already have a "circuit split", which strongly implies that the US Supremes are going to take a "carry case" eventually. Woolard out of MD is my guess but who knows.

The 9th appears to be dragging their feet on several carry cases. They have a choice: jump into the debate one side or the other and risk being wrong (and bringing more ridicule to the 9th "Circus") or just stall and buck-pass the thing to the US Supremes.

The most insane example so far is that DC carry case that was heard in...gawd, 2009 or so? And there's been no ruling at all at the trial court level? They're not just "dragging their feet", they bolted their boots into anvils that they buried in 2,000lbs of concrete that they JB-welded to a broken locomotive stranded with no rails in quicksand.

[CowTowner]

they bolted their boots into anvils that they buried in 2,000lbs of concrete that they JB-welded to a broken locomotive stranded with no rails in quicksand.

That is one heck of an analogy, Jim. Thanks loads for it. It kinda brightened my day a little.

[Jim March]

Made up on the spot, custom for TFL. You're welcome.

[Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret]

Anyone (for all practical purposes) carrying a gun was charged with UUW/AUUW in Illinois.

Recently, an exemption was signed into law:
Anyone with a concealed carry permit (and FOID) can carry a gun concealed. Conversely, anyone carrying a gun without a FOID or a carry permit in Illinois would be charged with UUW/AUUW.

Now this Illinois Supreme court ruling takes a huge step forward and says that there is no more UUW/AUUW penalty. Since open carry isn't covered in the new law, what would you be charged with for open carrying?

[maestro pistolero]

Disturbing the peace would top the list.

[CowTowner]

Disturbing the peace would top the list.

If this is true, would it be correct to state that you would not be charged with a felony any longer? I seem to recall the UUW/AUUW charge(s) were felonies with a possible long stay in a state supplied housing block.

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by Jum March

The 9th appears to be dragging their feet on several carry cases. They have a choice: jump into the debate one side or the other and risk being wrong (and bringing more ridicule to the 9th "Circus") or just stall and buck-pass the thing to the US Supremes.

Jim, my sense of it is that they (9th panel) are waiting to see if Woollard gets its cert grant. If yes, stay the cases. If no, hand down the (very likely) negative decision.

[2ndsupporter]

Negative decisions? Please clarify

[MLeake]

I think he means the Ninth is notoriously RKBA-unfriendly, and biased toward limiting carry. They would like to rule on pending cases in a manner that would restrict possession outside the home.

However, if they think SCOTUS may grant cert to a case that could result in a ruling that would overturn a Ninth decision (potentially embarrassing sitting judges on the Ninth), then they will adopt a wait and see attitude.

[press1280]

A negative decision from CA9 would be another wishy washy "we assume the 2A applies outside the home", then use rational basis dressed up as intermediate scrutiny to dispose of it.
An "only in the home" losing decision would be better, as it would be a direct split with Moore and now Aguilar.
Best scenario would of course be an opinion striking down "good cause". It would then split with the CA2,3, and 4 opinions. I differ with Jim in that I don't think Moore/Aguilar are necessarily a split. The CA3 & 4 opinions(released after Moore was handed down) did their best to create the illusion that there's a world of difference between the old IL statute and the NJ/MD.

I do think from listening to orals that we have a decent shot at winning at CA9.