That would be Illinois, of course.
The ONLY state in the country that is "no-issue": open or concealed, you just don't get to carry a gun at all unless you're a cop.
Or a criminal, of course.
But that, Gentle Reader, is about to change.
Follow me below the orange bore brush.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling in a case called Moore vs Madigan.
Lisa Madigan is the Attorney General for the State of Illinois.
The plaintiffs/appellants contend that Illinois' draconian gun laws, which basically prohibit any gun from ever leaving your house unless you have no ammunition with you, violate the Second Amendment.
And the judge agreed with them. In his decision, he writes:
Heller repeatedly invokes a broader Second Amendment right than the right to have a gun in one’s home, as when it says that the amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” 554 U.S. at 592.When you consider not only the impact of Heller on this case, but on the subsequent landmark SCOTUS case, McDonald vs. CHICAGO.....there's a certain poetry and tactical genius here.
Confrontations are not limited to the home.
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.
Where's the first place you go after overly restrictive gun laws?
Why, where the most egregious examples of same are: Illinois.
And the remedy ordered by the Seventh Circuit in the person of Judge Posner:
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 theoreticalEmphasis mine.
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. 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. 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.
Just so. The thumb in the eye of the Bill of Rights represented by Illinois' gun laws has just been removed.
The human right to the means of self defense has just been affirmed in the last place in America dead set to deny it in the face of the Constitution.
Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme or somewhere in between, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections. We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion.As always, if you're interested in joining RKBA, message KVoimakas.