Federal appeals court tosses Illinois ban on carrying concealed weapons
BY DAVE MCKINNEY AND FRAN SPIELMAN Sun-Times Media December 11, 2012 5:54PM
Indiana law doesn’t mention concealment:
According to the Indiana State Police, the state handgun permits do not mention concealing weapons.
However, the website warns, carrying an exposed weapon in public may alarm some people. Also, the right to carry a firearm may be restricted on private property and businesses by the owners.
If approached by law enforcement for official business such as traffic stops or complaint related inquiries, the State Police recommend that officers should be told in a in a non-threatening manner that you are carrying a weapon or have a weapon in the vehicle and that you have a valid permit. A law enforcement officer has the right to inspect the permit.
Updated: December 11, 2012 8:22PM
SPRINGFIELD, ILL. — In a huge win for gun-rights groups, a divided federal appeals court in Chicago on Tuesday tossed the state’s ban on carrying concealed weapons and gave Illinois’ Legislature 180 days to craft a law legalizing concealed carry.
“The debate is over. We won. And there will be a statewide carry law in 2013,” said Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.
In Indiana, state law is silent on the issue. Qualifying for a gun permit gives the permit holder the right to carry the weapon as he pleases, according to the Indiana State Police. Illinois is the only state with an outright prohibition on concealed carry.
A move to legalize concealed weapons could surface as soon as the January lame-duck session but is more likely to drag into the spring with a debate now no longer centering on whether to permit concealed carry but where — or where not — to permit it, such as college campuses, bars, sports arenas and movie theaters.
The timing hinges on Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s plans. She still hasn’t said whether she intends to appeal Tuesday’s dramatic ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a split opinion, the three-member 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed lower court rulings in two cases downstate that upheld the state’s longstanding prohibition against carrying concealed weapons.
“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,” Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court’s majority opinion.
“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 theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense,” he continued.
“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,” Posner wrote.
“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,” he continued.
“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,” Posner said.
In a minority opinion, Judge Ann Williams wrote that Illinois is within its rights to ban weapons in “sensitive places” like government buildings, churches and universities in the name of safety.
“The Illinois legislature reasonably concluded that if people are allowed to carry guns in public, the number of guns carried in public will increase, and the risk of firearms-related injury or death in public will increase as well,” Williams said. “And it is also common sense that the danger is a great one; firearms are lethal.”
The attorney general, who was defending the state’s prohibition of concealed carry, remained silent on whether her office would appeal Tuesday’s ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“The court gave 180 days before its decision will be returned to the lower court to be implemented. 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,” Madigan spokeswoman Maura Possley said.
In May 2011, gun-rights advocates lost a bid in the Illinois House to legalize concealed carry by a 65-32 vote. Seventy-one votes were necessary for passage of the legislation, House Bill 148, which was lobbied against by Gov. Pat Quinn and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
The measure, sponsored by state Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, would have enabled Illinoisans to carry concealed weapons if they had a firearm owner’s identification card and underwent a firearms education course.
At the time of the vote, the Illinois State Police estimated that 325,000 people would have taken advantage of a concealed-carry program, which was projected to raise $32 million annually for the state through license fees.
Phelps would not rule out possibly trying to move concealed carry legislation during the upcoming lame-duck legislative session, which runs from Jan. 2 through mid-day on Jan. 9. But he stopped short of saying how closely a new bill would mimic HB148.
“In that bill, there were a lot of limitations, a lot of safety guidelines, background checks. But pretty much, this court today didn’t really specify where you can carry, where you can’t. It just sent a mandate that Illinois has to have a concealed carry law in 180 days,” he said. “I think we can come to an agreement. I think we can pass sensible legislation.”
Whatever form the legislation takes, Phelps said he thinks it will have a noticeable impact on Chicago’s crime epidemic.
“There are a lot of people in the city of Chicago who are scared to say if they are for concealed carry. I had numerous people email and call me from Chicago and Cook County who said they wanted this day to happen — people who couldn’t say something, but maybe worked for the city or county,” Phelps said.
“I think you’ll see a reduction in violence because right now, the criminals know there’s no one legally who can defend themselves. If I’m a gang member and I now know there’s concealed carry, if I try to steal that person’s bag, I’ll be careful what I do because that person might have a gun.”
The governor’s office, meanwhile, played its cards close to the vest after Tuesday’s ruling but noted Quinn’s opposition to the earlier Phelps legislation.
“His opposition then stands for itself,” Quinn spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said, referring to her boss. “But we’re reviewing the opinion now to determine our next step.”
But Vandermyde, the NRA lobbyist, cautioned that gun-rights advocates won’t allow the legislative process to drag on indefinitely, and certainly not past the 180-day window established by the appeals court.
“I can tell you right now, we’ll look very dimly about people dragging their feet to sit here and say we’re going to let the governor play his little game ... to drag it out for another year. If that happens, there’s the probability we’ll be back in court, seeking an injunction immediately. There’s a cliff to this thing,” Vandermyde said.
“You know what? We waited 20 years for this. We’re tired of waiting.”