Federal court overturns Illinois concealed weapon ban

Gun owners and supporters participate in an Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day rally at the Illinois State Capitol in Springfield on March 7, 2012. / AP Photo

CHICAGOIn a major victory for gun rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a ban on carrying concealed weapons in Illinois — the only remaining state where carrying concealed weapons is entirely illegal — and gave lawmakers 180 days to write a law that legalizes it.

In overturning a lower court decision, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the ban was unconstitutional and suggested a law legalizing concealed carry is long overdue in a state where gun advocates had vowed to challenge the ban on every front.

Play Video

Okla. allows open carry of concealed weapons

"There is no suggestion that some unique characteristic of criminal activity in Illinois justifies the state's taking a different approach from the other 49 states," Judge Richard Posner, who wrote the court's majority opinion. "If the Illinois approach were demonstrably superior, one would expect at least one or two other states to have emulated it."

Gun rights advocates were thrilled by the decision. They have long argued that the prohibition violates the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment and what they see as Americans' right to carry guns for self-defense.

"Christmas came early for law-abiding gun owners," said state Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Democratic lawmaker from southern Illinois whose proposed legislation approving concealed carry narrowly lost in the Legislature last year. "It's a mandate."

Gov. Pat Quinn, who favors strict gun control laws, did not immediately comment on the ruling. In a statement, an aide to Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who is responsible for defending the state's laws in court, said Madigan's office would review the ruling before deciding whether to appeal or take other action.

"The court gave 180 days before its decision will be returned to the lower court to be implemented," Maura Possley, a Madigan spokeswoman, said in a statement. "That time period allows our office to review what legal steps can be taken and enables the legislature to consider whether it wants to take action."

Richard Pearson, the executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said there is no reason why lawmakers cannot pass Phelps' bill during a weeklong legislative session in January.

"Now that the court has ruled ... we will work as soon as possible with legislators to craft a concealed carry bill for the state of Illinois," he said.

The court did order its ruling stayed 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 wrote.

Phelps suggested that the court, in its 2-1 ruling, may have encouraged lawmakers to pass a far less restrictive concealed carry law than the one he proposed last year that was rejected.

"I said on the floor, `A lot of people who voted against this, one of these days you're going to wish you did, because of all the limitations and the safety precautions we put in this bill, because one of these days the court's going to rule and you're not going to like the ruling," he said. "Today's the day."

The appellate panel's majority ruling, which was replete with historical references, argued that Illinois had not made a strong case that a gun ban was vital to public safety. It also was a signal to state lawmakers and gun-ban activists that the time to argue about the Second Amendment has passed.

"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," wrote 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."

But the dissenting judge, Ann Claire Williams, raised questions that could come up in a possible appeal or when lawmakers begin to debate and craft a new law addressing the issue.

Play Video

On the front lines of Chicago's gang wars

Play Video

Mexican cartel drug war adding to Chicago violence

After saying that "protecting the safety of its citizens is unquestionably a significant state interest," Williams wrote, "when firearms are carried outside the home, the safety of a broader range of citizens is at issue. The risk of being injured or killed now extends to strangers, law enforcement personnel, and other private citizens who happen to be in the area."

Gun rights advocates had been threatening to make Illinois once again the center of the national gun-control debate over the issue. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court made Chicago's 28-year-old handgun ban unenforceable, ruling that Americans have the right to have guns in their homes for protection. The city responded by approving alternative methods of restricting who can have guns.

Gun control advocates did not immediately respond to the ruling. But as other states passed concealed carry laws, they had argued that Illinois' ban was important for their stance in the national debate over gun control.

The country needs "one state people can look to and see it's still doing the right thing," Mark Walsh, director of the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said last year.

The ruling Monday stems from a lawsuit filed by a former corrections officer, Michael Moore of Champaign, a farmer, Charles Hooks of Percy in southeastern Illinois and the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation.

[curtis41]

I suggest readers take a good look at the newest paperback on MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME, by John Lott, Jr. It is an extremely thorough study on the effects of guns and gun laws on crime. I find it somewhat ironic that in the highest crime areas, there is the greatest tendency to enact strong gun control laws. What this does is have the effect of having just the criminals armed, and ordinary citizens unable to defend themselves. The requirements for carry should be more restrictive, run FBI and state and local background checks on applicants to carry. A reasonable training requirement and the ability to at least hit a pie plate at 20 feet is, perhaps, a reasonable requirement. Crimes involving guns with firearm licencees are very, very low, compared to the rest of our population, and many crimes are prevented, most often with no shots fired. It is time for Chicago to come out of the dark ages and join the other 49 states on this issue. What I expect, is for Chicago to take the lead and pass a stringent carry legislation, that will restrict the ability of law-abiding people to obtain a carry permit. This was the case initially in Washington, D.C. where a Colt .45 pistol could not be registered, because it was a two-tone pistol, and not on the California (highly restricted) approved handgun list. These restrictive handgun laws have the effect of disarming responsible citizens from defending themselves and their families. Criminals will often be armed. It makes no sense to ensure that responsible others not be armed. Let Illinois appeal the ruling, they will most likely lose, and waste a lot of taxpayer money doing so. With the record on firearms in Illinois, my prediction is they will spend their time crafting highly restrictive carry requirements, and charge so much to process a license, that few people can complete or afford. That is to say, they will be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century, and "allow" people to defend themselves against crime and those armed to the nines, with criminal intent. Thank you court of appeals.

[cattiej]

Now we folks to don't like guns can shop, visit, go anywhere and maybe we can be shot during the crossfire of two gun toten individuals. I'm to old to start learning how to shoot a gun and I don't want to be around some of the people that I know are too old to shoot and carry any type of gun. Some of these older people are almost senile, can't see, can't hear and say they are now going to start carrying their guns on their hips...God Help Us All.

[RowlandP]

Don't worry, you'll be killed on the road first by one of your old, blind, senile bretheren who won't give up their driver's license. If this new gun law makes a few of you stay home (and off the road) then it was worth it just for that.

[RowlandP]

Gotta give CBS credit for even reporting this. Try and find this story on CNN or ABC.

[Colt4542]

I've had my Florida carry permit since '87 with no problems. While I don't have exact figures in my head, FBI stats will show violent crime goes down when responsible gun ownership goes up. It's simple logic. Criminals attack the easy target. Would a criminal be more likely to attack someone they know is unarmed or someone who may be legally carrying - and trained to use their weapon? Think twice before breaking into a house - or doing a car jacking - in a right to carry state.

[Colt4542]

INBETHLEHEM: There is no comparison between the US and the other countries you listed. We enjoy freedoms everyone else in the world only dreams of. Why else would just about everyone want to come here? OBTW - Where did you get your "facts"? No citations were included. Bet you plugged into some gun ban web site.

Besides I was not comparing the US to any other "country" but to states and locals where right to carry laws go into effect. Invariable, violence of all kind goes down.

[Daid132]

If everyone who was licensed to "carry concealed", I'll bet you would see a dramatic drop in handgun crime in Chicago. At the present time, gangs know they're the only ones carrying concealed. This will even the score.

[LarryMoniz]

Obviously, the reporter has never tried to get a concealed carry permit, or any other type of carry permission in New Jersey, where it is virtually impossible to get one unless you are a retired cop, federal agent or armored car guard. Also, you must be able to show imminent danger. So, either N.J. is no longer part of the United States, or the reporter has the facts wrong. Not much of a surprise these days. I was an journalist/writer for 45 years and the quality of today's "reporters" is pretty bad-everywhere.

[OmegaWolf747]

The right thing is allow people to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.