Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit. A long and well-thought out opinion, I'm only partway thru, but it strikes down Illinois' general ban on carrying open or concealed, and stays its mandate 180 days so the legislature can try to come up with something constitutional. The theme of the opinion is largely, "don't try to re-argue Heller, you lost that one, and we're going to apply it honestly."
The author is Judge Posner, who is no friend of the Second Amendment, but does believe in following precedent.
UPDATE: I think we have something of a Circuit split, between this and the 2nd Circuit's ruling in Kachalsky. The 2d Circuit treated right to carry very narrowly, "may issue" is perfectly OK, and the law can be justified by the fact that the legislature thought it was a good idea. Moore treats the right to carry much more broadly, and holds that restrictions must be justified by hard proof that there are benefits, not speculation. It's not a perfect split, but pretty close to one.
Looks like Judge Posner rejected The Ursine Gambit. "Bear" means carry, not furry forest creatures.
Posted by: jdberger at December 11, 2012 11:32 AM
I wonder to what extent this ruling is likely to inform the 9th Circuit in its consideration of the currently-pending cases from California and Hawaii. If the Second Amendment cannot countenance a total ban on concealed carry outside the home, could it allow an arbitrary and capricious system where the right to bear arms is left to the discretion of local officials?
I've not yet read the opinion, but I also wonder if any standard of review is emerging in consensus between the Federal courts for 2nd Amendment cases. It doesn't sound as though rational basis review is going to fly, but who can say?
Posted by: Tammy at December 11, 2012 06:12 PM
What I took from Posner's opinion was that the individual right to bear arms for self defense was implicit in Heller and McDonald and as such its settled law. From that I further interpret that local issuance for "good cause" is probably fine as long as self defense is deemed by such locals to contitute "good cause."
Posted by: Carl from Chicago at December 11, 2012 06:21 PM
If you'll excuse me, I will be making signs that say "The End Is Near"
Posted by: TinCan Assassin at December 11, 2012 07:35 PM
I predict that IL will adopt New York's "permit" law wholesale, which I believe provides that permits are available only if some law enforcement official determines that you have a "need" for personal protection that exceeds an "ordinary" need. I further predict that any IL law will provide Cook County with the local option to impose its own restrictions/requirements such that permits issued elsewhere in the state are not valid in Cook County. New York's law hasn't been declared unconstitutional yet, so IL will take the position that it's a reasonable model to adopt.
That's essentially what Chicago did after McDonald - OK, 100% ban is no good, we'll adopt a 90% ban. So sue us.
Posted by: wrangler5 at December 12, 2012 12:15 AM
There are several issues that are Illinois specific that may affect the extent of this ruling and any resulting legislation. Beyond the fact that Illinois politicians, especially Chicago and Belleville area ones, have shown that they will do anything to be able to infringe on people's defense rights.
One is the IL constitution support for "Home Rule" and the fact that several cities, including Chicago, operate on pre-constitution special charters. Unlike states like Washington where the state preempts local laws, IL turns that upside down and allows home rule cities (there are 209 according to the Il Municipal League) to preempt state law. Another is that IL local law enforcement has a history of using 'disorderly conduct' & failure to obey an officer's orders very freely against its citizens. Unless the legislature and the rights advocates pay very careful attention to the lessons of other states they are not going to define what is not a permissable disorderly charge thus leaving the new carrying public open to very expensive and possibly deadly harassment. As an example look up the history of Galeburg IL and tasering. And that young man was only carrying a bible and a cordless phone.
MichaelWho lived 8 years in IL and now lives in the land of Jefferson where private sales of guns is allowed but not private sales of liquor. Go figure!
Posted by: Michael D. Gale at December 12, 2012 07:26 AM
According to one of the stories, the Illinois house did vote in favor of a concealed carry law in May by a substantial margin (65-32 IIRC), but for some reason it required 71 votes to pass. Perhaps because (my speculation) it did pre-empt home rule cities "with certain exceptions."
The summaries of it on the Ill leg website looked like they had taken lessons from other states. For example, it protected the confidentiality of who has a concealed carry permit, forbid home-rule regulation of possession and transportation of firearms, etc.
The sponsor was a democrat, and has not yet said whether he will try to get it passed again -- the is a very short lame-duck session in January.
Posted by: Eric at December 12, 2012 08:30 AM
For the moment it is us that have them by the testicles.
Posted by: 475okh at December 12, 2012 10:15 AM
@475OKH, exactly right. The antis can't pass a horrible bill because the pro-rights people can simply refuse to vote for it, allowing the ruling to take effect in 6 months.
IL has an unusual situation where some super majority is needed to enact legislation that binds on a state-wide basis, overriding the home rule cities and towns. Once the super majority is obtained and the law enacted, only a majority is required to modify the law.
My concern is how long the appeal provess will take. IL will probably seek an en banc review and seek a further stay during that. Should that be denied (which seems likely) maybe they will even appeal to the Supreme Court. They have nothing to lose for IL, but it would sure be interesting for the rest of us. As there is a a circuit split now, SCOUTS may even take it. Let's hope Kennedy believes that bearing is a right just like keeping.
Posted by: Jim at December 12, 2012 11:26 AM
It's a slightly-more-than-tenuous split with Kachalsky over the outside-the-home question. The cases are not directly analogous, so some stretching might be called for. My personal view is that the two cases collide on the question of how to handle outside the home. CA-2 assumed its existence, but washed it with rational-called-intermediate scrutiny. CA-7 ignored scrutiny, largely as a by-product of the near-complete ban.
The key points for me are Posner's clear instruction that the right outside the home is the same as the one inside the home (subject to some TPM restrictions presupposed in Heller).
Wonder if CA-4 will announce Woollard before a cert petition for Kachalsky is reviewed? That one is a much closer parallel, and if the 4th found for the gun-rights, that would be an almost perfect split.
Happy with Moore. It's a terrific ruling.
Posted by: Patrick at December 12, 2012 01:56 PM
Every gun owner in that dam state should call and make sure that NO CCW law is passed. Tell them not to do a dam thing. Wait until 180 days are up and then constitutional carry is yours!
Posted by: 5thofNov at December 12, 2012 09:09 PM