T Nation

Federal Court Overrules Illinois' Ban on Concealed Carry

Yippee! http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/11/federal-court-strikes-down-illinois-ban-on-carrying-concealed-weapons/

CS

The Second Amendment states in its entirety that ?a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed? (emphasis added). 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 . . .

Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim, while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter. That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald . . .

A blanket prohibition on carrying gun in public prevents a person from defending himself anywhere except inside his home; and so substantial a curtailment of the right of armed self-defense requires a greater showing of justification than merely that the public might benefit on balance from such a curtailment, though there is no proof it would . . .

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. 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. 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. "

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
The Second Amendment states in its entirety that ?a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed? (emphasis added). 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 . . .

Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim, while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter. That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald . . .

A blanket prohibition on carrying gun in public prevents a person from defending himself anywhere except inside his home; and so substantial a curtailment of the right of armed self-defense requires a greater showing of justification than merely that the public might benefit on balance from such a curtailment, though there is no proof it would . . .

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. 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. 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. "
[/quote]

Excellent post. I live in Illinois as well.

CS

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
The Second Amendment states in its entirety that ?a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed? (emphasis added). 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 . . .

Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim, while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter. That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald . . .

A blanket prohibition on carrying gun in public prevents a person from defending himself anywhere except inside his home; and so substantial a curtailment of the right of armed self-defense requires a greater showing of justification than merely that the public might benefit on balance from such a curtailment, though there is no proof it would . . .

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. 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. 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. "
[/quote]

Excellent post. I live in Illinois as well.

CS
[/quote]

I thought so too, it was part of the decision written by Richard Posner, lol.

IL has until June 9, 2013 to pass a bill allowing some form of carry or IL residents get Constitutional Carry with only a FOID card. Some interesting times…

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.