Court Strikes Down Illinois Concealed Carry Ban
By Carl Wicklander | 12/16/2012 | Activism, Headline, Safety | 7 Comments
(Credit: Chicago Tribune)
In one of the more contentious issues in the United States today, a federal court struck down the Illinois concealed carry ban, the last state without some form of a concealed carry permit. The state legislature now has 180 days to write a law of its own.
Concealed carry, an important issue among gun-rights advocates, would allow gun owners to carry their weapons, often a handgun, in a holster on or near his or her body. A concealed carry permit is usually accompanied by a training course.
Among concealed carry proponents, the issue is a matter of defending oneself outside the home because criminals can strike anywhere. Its opponents contend that increased gun ownership leads to increased violence and concealed carry only exacerbates the likelihood that a domestic dispute will escalate to include fatalities.
Gun control advocates like Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, a Democrat who is often mentioned as a future candidate for US Senate or governor, face a decision about what to do next. The state legislature will soon begin crafting legislation while the attorney general has the option of appealing to the US Court of Appeals.
Illinois governor Pat Quinn, also a Democrat, plans to let Madigan make the decision about appeal, but said he wants “reasonable restrictions,” which would include prohibiting people with a history of mental illness from obtaining concealed carry permits. Quinn also seeks a ban on “military-style assault weapons.”
Gun control is a unique issue in Illinois in part because of the geography of the state. Stretching from north to south, Illinois is greatly influenced by Chicago Democrats like Madigan who favor strong gun control, but downstate Democrats in more conservative parts of the state tend to favor less gun control.
By appealing to a higher court, Madigan risks alienating a constituency she may need if she plans to move up in Illinois politics.
The state legislature still has the option of writing stringent legislation that may still effectively ban concealed carry in Illinois. House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie replied to the ruling, “The proponents of concealed carry have not yet carried the day” and in the other 49 states in which concealed carry exists, there are different classes.
One is “Unrestricted,” in which there are basically no restrictions and weapons may even be carried openly. There are also “Shall-Issue” and “May-Issue” states where there are varying levels of discretion given to state and local governments to issue concealed carry permits that includes rejecting certain individuals.
Illinois’ gun control advocates urge the legislature to adopt a permit like the one in New York state, which is notoriously stingy in its distribution of permits.
Depending on the source, Illinois ranks fairly high in terms of gun violence, so it remains unclear what effect the defeated concealed carry ban will have. However, the ruling almost guarantees that the debate will continue.
Leave Your Comment →
7 Comments
J Liwag
12.16.2012
Firearms are for law enforcers, government officials, and also for law abiding citizens who elected them. Regardless of gun control, criminals can always have them from the neighboring 49 states, and, therefore, preventing criminals from owning firearms is like preventing lightnings from striking. Law abiding citizens have no access to illegal weapons for which reason they are very vulnerable to unexpected attacks by criminals. Law abiding citizens are educated and will never act like the characters depicted in wild west movies. Firearms are not only for self-defense but also deterrents and tools for preventing attacks, that’s why in some parts of Europe, every citizen is not only allowed but also required to own a firearms.
JimStanton
12.17.2012
Which countries in Europe are these? Please substantiate your claim with a source. I am very curious because it seems even the most dire countries in Europe have adopted some form of gun control laws. Talking of carrying guns as a form of protection or deterrent speaks to the insecurity that the rest of the world sees in the American people. In the rest of the world, people trust each other. They don’t fear each other, certainly not their countrymen. It’s actually kind of awesome! I have never in my life had to say “Remember that mass shooting,” or “Thank god Jimmy had his gun on him,” or “If only Jimmy had a gun.” Bad things happen, this is true, but I would never find security in knowing more people have guns as opposed to less.
Eric
12.18.2012
The characterization of the “rest of the world” as being a utopian paradise is puzzling at best in light of the numerous honest-to God MASSACRES that have happened all over the world, real ones on the order of six digits, not a piddly two. The very best interpretation I can come up with is that you mean that the populations of individual countries trust each other. To this I would suggest that the Balkanization of Europe and Africa show exactly WHY they’re more comfortable with each other- they separate into smaller and smaller groups until they’re at a functional level of ethnic and cultural homogeneity and feel they have a national identity that they can buy off on. We the melting pot, with a strong central government ensuring that we can never exercise state’s rights the way the Founders intended do not have such a luxury. We’re in it together, and that means we have to live with each other. Most of us are capable of doing that without killing each other. A very few are not. The run of the mill killers are criminals that are brought up in a culture of violence, and I mean a REAL culture of violence, as in it is the preferred currency of the street. They become desensitized to the natural aversion we all have to killing. The spree/rampage/amok killers are the mentally ill ones that never had that aversion to begin with.
Gun control will solve neither of these problems, in fact if ordinary people can go through their work day with a pistol in a purse, locked in a desk drawer, or tucked in a waistband without being fired or thrown in jail, then someone will have one the next time either of the above killers strikes. The results will not encourage more of that behavior, and that is the exact opposite of what we have now. In the case of common criminals, that will encourage them to make something of themselves, something more noble than a thug with a penchant for violence. In the case of the mentally ill, well…they need help. Hopefully we find a way to get it to them. But if we do, it won’t have anything to do with guns.
Cassidy Noblejas Bartolomei
12.17.2012
@cassidynb
Do you know why the court struck down the ban?
Carl Wicklander
12.17.2012
@carlwicklander
That the ban was unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds and did not prove that it produced an increase in public safety:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-11/news/chi-us-appeals-court-strikes-down-states-concealedcarry-ban-20121211_1_court-strikes-appeals-court-david-sigale
Bruce Mccoy
12.22.2012
@bruce_mccoy
Gun violence has to be treated as a ‘risk management’ issue – identify and prioritize the risk, and find solutions that address most effectively the highest risks. Risks include damage and probability of occurrence.
jack
12.22.2012
If you have any questions regarding the CWP class or training contact http://www.e2c.us or 1-866-371-6111 and the Instructors at Equip 2 Conceal will be happy to help you.