VA-ALERT: Huge win on concealed carry in Illinois!

[OakRidgeStars]

VA-ALERT: Huge win on concealed carry in Illinois! Harbinger of things to come?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not yet a VCDL member? Join VCDL at: http://www.vcdl.org/join.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A huge win for Illinois in the 7th Circuit! The last "no carry" state has fallen! Illinois has 180 days to get a concealed carry law in place (or they will become Vermont-carry)!

And this can only help the case for Maryland getting "shall issue" permits

From my birth-state:

From the Chicago Sun-Times: http://tinyurl.com/armfjma

Big win for gun-rights groups: Federal appeals court tosses state ban on carrying concealed weapons

By Dave McKinney on December 11, 2012 11:21 AM

SPRINGFIELD - In a huge win for gun-rights groups, a federal appeals court in Chicago Tuesday tossed the state's ban on carrying concealed weapons and gave Illinois' Legislature 180 days to craft a law legalizing concealed carry.

"The debate is over. We won. And there will be a statewide carry law in 2013," said Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.

In a split opinion (see below), the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling in two cases downstate that upheld the state's longstanding prohibition against carrying concealed weapons.

Illinois is the only state with an outright prohibition on concealed carry.

"We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home," Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's majority opinion.

"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. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense," he continued.

"Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden," Posner wrote.

"The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions," he continued.

"Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public," Posner said.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who was defending the state's prohibition of concealed carry, did not have an immediate response to the ruling released Tuesday morning.

In a minority opinion, Judge Ann Williams wrote that Illinois is within its rights to ban weapons in "sensitive places" like government buildings, churches and universities in the name of safety.

"The Illinois legislature reasonably concluded that if people are allowed to carry guns in public, the number of guns carried in public will increase, and the risk of firearms-related injury or death in public will increase as well," Williams said. "And it is also common sense that the danger is a great one; firearms are lethal."

In 2011, gun-rights advocates lost a bid in the Illinois House to legalize concealed carry by a 65-32 vote. Seventy-one votes were necessary for passage.

The measure, sponsored by state Rep. Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg), would have enabled Illinoisans to carry concealed weapons if they had a firearm owner's identification card and underwent a firearms education course.

Under the failed bill, permit holders could not have been a patient in a mental institution in the previous five years nor have any felony, violent misdemeanor or drug convictions in the previous 10 years.

Concealed weapons also wouldn't have been allowed under the plan at government buildings, courthouses, schools, sports arenas and stadiums, amusement parks, libraries or college campuses.

At the time of the vote, the Illinois State Police estimated that 325,000 people would taken advantage of a concealed-carry program, which was projected to raise $32 million annually for the state through license fees.



***************************************************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.

VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org [http://www.vcdl.org/]

[Jakeiscrazy]

Now with this ruling can they choose to pass "may issue"?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[OakRidgeStars]

Now with this ruling can they choose to pass "may issue"?

Shall issue vs. may issue will no doubt the be the next battle in Illinois.

[totes6]

Now with this ruling can they choose to pass "may issue"?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

That was exactly my question Jake. From my reading of news, the court seems to say "impose reasonable restrictions" which everyone here knows is a very wide wording. Especially when you bring politicians into the mix. Somehow I have a feeling that the court will be hearing another case very soon, about whether or not "may-issue" is a "reasonable restriction."