Another big day for the right to arms
Moore v. Madigan, the 7th Cir. ruling that struck down the Illinois law banning unlicensed carrying, with licenses on a may issue basis .... the State's motion for reconsideration en banc was denied. Now their choices are, go for cert. and face the risk the Supreme Court might take it, establish firmly that carrying outside the home is protected, and "may issue" doesn't suffice, or let a high favorable decision stand, one that will create future circuit splits, and hope they can control how the legislature rewrites the law.
On the other hand, the 10th Circuit in Peterson v. Martinez ruled that the Colorado CCW statute, which only allows permits to Colorado residents, did not violate either the right to arms or the Article IV ban on States discriminating against nonresidents' "privileges or immunities." It did suggest a different result might be had if the challenge were also to Denver's ordinance banning open carry, creating a situation where a nonresident could not carry at all.
Quick correction: the Illinois law contains no provision for carrying. Illinois has no licensing scheme for carrying of firearms by non-peace officers. The court ruled the law was unconstitutional and then stayed enforcement for 180 days to give the legislature time to pass a law allowing the carrying of firearms in public with reasonable restrictions. With en banc denied, the choices for the State's Attorney are 1) appeal to the Supreme Court, and hope for a reversal of the 7th Circuit, or 2) wait for the legislature to pass a carry bill. If a bill is not passed, than Illinois residents will have "Constitutional carry" unless local units of government pass their own carry bills, which will likely be a patchwork of shall- and may-issue with Chicago and Cook counties opting for a NY or CA-style "may-issue" (no-issue). It would take time and money to litigate each local law, which is why those in favor of carrying a firearm in public are pushing to get a law passed before the stay expires.
There have been several carry bills proposed this session (HB 997/SB 1284 are NRA-sponsored). This past week, the Illinois House Judiciary committee held hearings on the issue of licensed carry and one of the big discussion points has been may-issue v. shall-issue. The other point which the NRA lobbyist has said is non-negotiable is state-wide preemption of home-rule: any carry law passed will apply uniformly across Illinois.
Posted by: Illinois Independent at February 23, 2013 12:29 AM
As I understand it, the Illinois Constitution requires state laws to pass with a 60% majority if they are to apply to Chicago and other "home rule" cities. The Chicago interests have been able to block all attempts at any sort of concealed carry laws over the years, and they can be expected to do the same for any sort of statewide preemption on these issues.
Given the realities of Illinois politics, it will be astonishing if there is anything BUT a patchwork of carry laws, just as there was a patchwork of handgun prohibitions before the McDonald decision. (Chicago was the most notorious, but there were several other cities that also had complete bans on handguns.)
Posted by: wrangler5 at February 23, 2013 03:01 AM