Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ 

Illinois Gun Laws To Be Challenged In Court

August 3, 2011 by  

Illinois are being challenged through lawsuits.Two lawsuits were recently filed in Illinois that challenged State laws that prohibit carrying firearms outside the home, according to The Wall Street Journal. These suits could ultimately end up in the United States Supreme Court and lead to a definitive ruling about gun rights in America, according to the newspaper.

Gun-control legislation in Illinois is some of the most restrictive in the country and bans almost everyone from carrying firearms in public, reports the newspaper. Previous Supreme Court decisions have been unclear about the Constitutionality of this type of ban, causing many gun-rights advocates to file lawsuits aiming to overturn these laws, according to the newspaper.

One of the lawsuits was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation, a gun advocate group. The founder, Alan Gottlieb, told the Journal that the group has filed 19 lawsuits in the past three years in hopes of having one reach the Supreme Court. “It’s flatly unconstitutional,” Gottlieb said of the current Illinois laws, according to the newspaper.

According to the National Rifle Association, 38 States currently allow the carrying of firearms if an appropriate permit is obtained.

Filed Under: Conservative Politics, Liberty News, Other News
Personal Liberty News Desk

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Illinois Gun Laws To Be Challenged In Court”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Bob

    OK, TML, so let’s have people pay money to take a test to carry a handgun, or vote, or post online. Maybe we could weed out some black people, like in the good old days, eh? Maybe they’s too intimidated or poor to pay to take a test to excercise a constitutional right, is that your angle? Well, hey, that’s something we can all get behind!

    Sarcasm mode off…

    • TML

      “so let’s have people pay money to take a test to carry a handgun, or vote, or post online.”

      That’s a logical fallacy, called a Straw Man … look it up.

      “Maybe we could weed out some black people, like in the good old days, eh?”

      Race is irrelevant.

      “Maybe they’s too intimidated”

      Getting a permit is not intimidating in any way. In fact, those who give the classes are very pro-gun, and genuinely eager to inform vital facts… such as the fact that, if you fire your weapon in obvious self defense, and miss, and hit someone else other than your attacker, and kill them, your justification for shooting goes right out the window, and you are now liable for the death of an innocent person, under penalty of law. Learning these things should never be intimidating, and I believe vital to any responsible person carrying a gun in public.

      “or poor to pay to take a test to excercise a constitutional right, is that your angle?”

      Well, I could say that…if they are too poor to pay for a class to educate themselves on the legalities and safety of carrying a firearm in public, then I would think they are too poor to buy the gun in the first place. Could such a person even afford to go to the shooting range? Some of that cost covers the ammunition and supplies during the class/test. What exactly are you arguing for? Do you think that felons, mentally incompetent, and completely untrained persons should also be allowed to carry a gun in public? Is that ‘your’ angle?

      The point remains… the cost of a class doesn’t infringe upon your 2nd amendment rights any more than the cost to buy a gun.

      Don’t get me wrong… there are many problems with the current policies and a procedure for issuing permits, Drawer22 pointed out. Permits, in my opinion, should be solely to train individuals on the legalities, responsibilities, and safety, of carrying firearms in public.

      • vicki

        Actually his argument is not a straw man. It is direct and to the point. If a right needs a permit to exercise that right why then are other rights exempt from needing a permit. Especially more dangerous rights like writing.

        “The pen is mightier than the sword”

      • TML

        It is important that I retract my last statements… in consideration of:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TufS87KZYg&feature=share
        She went on to become a member of the Texas House of Representatives.

        (key words – “I would much rather”)

      • TML

        “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, but is obligated to do so.” Thomas Jefferson

      • felon

        real quick, I was divorced years ago and became a drunk. I got 3 dui’s in a row making it a felony. I moved on and haven’t drank since. But I can never own a gun again. Never go hunting. Never go to the range. Is that fair? I made mistakes but should my rights be taken away? I don’t remember seeing that in the constitution.

    • James

      Bob, Rights are not constitutional, they are unalienable, they are dependent on any document for their existence.

      • James

        “are dependent” should have read “are not dependent.” Sorry.

      • vicki

        So if a right is not dependent on a document why are you requiring people to get a permit (that would be a document, would it not?) to exercise that right?

        (Note there maybe more than 1 James here so I may be taking to the wrong one.)

  • TML

    It’s about time someone took on Illinois. That state is notorious for trampling on the constitution.

    I believe all states should allow concealed and (not ‘or’) open carry, but as long as the purpose of the permit is to educate people on the use of their firearms, and the responsibility of carrying one, then I’m all for them. There is nothing more dangerous for yourself than carrying a gun that you’ve never even fired before (and these people do exist). A permit does not necessarily violate a persons 2nd Amendment right… as long as you’re not a felon, or have a medically diagnosed mental illness, anyone can get one. For example… in Texas, anyone who can buy a gun, can go pay $100 for a 12 hour class on gun safety and legalities/responsibility of carrying, and you got you permit. Simple… and necessary (IMHO)

    • Drawer22

      @TML -

      And just how – as a NRA-certified Instructor (at my own expense for the classes and certifications), a Veteran (having served 2 voluntary combat tours with Special Forces and an assignment as a Military Academy instructor, among many other assignments during my career), and a former law enforcement officer (having served at the municipal, county and federal levels) – is paying an additional $100.00 for a 12-hour class (during which I would be unable to teach firearms safety and skills, nor would I be able to make money at any other job during the class) NOT an infringement on my rights?

      Cogito, ergo armatus sum.

      Respectfully,
      Đại Úy Paul

      • TML

        “And just how … … is paying an additional $100.00 for a 12-hour class … … NOT an infringement on my rights?”

        Then I shall add… if you cannot prove it by records of service or other formal training, then paying the money for a test to prove it, is not an infringement. This is to do with the general welfare and safety of the public from untrained incompetent people carrying guns. I do believe that those who have verifiable credentials via documentation should not be made to attend any class, undergo any test, and thus pay no fee, for the permit. I agree that this is not how it currently works, and something should be done about that, however, the point remains… a permit is easy to get, and necessary.

      • vicki

        Can we apply your idea to “journalists” too please? The pen is claimed to be mightier then the sword. We should not allow untrained people to write.

    • 12AngryMen

      It’s the very idea that there is a barrier at all in the permit process. That barrier could be the ability to read and write, pay a fee, pass any kind of ability test, etc.

      NONE of those tests are valid requirements for the right to bear arms, and are subject to constant change depending on whose in charge at the time.

  • Mutantone

    BY law you are allowed to carry a weapon in full view, sure they will hassle you for it but if your doing nothing wrong they have no right to stop you with any open carry most of the laws limit concealed carry, but if you carry your rifle or shotgun over your shoulder in the open, unless it is a restricted area like a bank or bar.

    • vicki

      Don’t you just love those gun-free zones. Just the place for psychopaths to go hunting. And they do.

  • Freeman

    Supreme court ruling sez that no law that infringes on the constitutional rights of a individual, federal and state, is a law.
    Further that individuals can challenge any federal law that offers penalty that would otherwise be lesser at state or local level.
    I carry cause cops are too heavy…and too many crooks carry.
    When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
    All who carry need to know the implications of and responsibility of any action taken.
    Any agency that delays or infringes in any way, the lawful right to carry is guilty of unconstitutional actions and a violation of their oath of office.
    A word of further caution.
    >This ain’t an add, just sound advice:
    The Buckeye Forearms Association offers insurance for the after the fact use of a firearm. I suggest checking it out.
    You may be perfectly correct in every way in using your weapon, however, be aware that in a majority (50 -70%) of these cases, the user is charged or at least investigated.
    The people will need to look into bringing back our Constitution. Legislation to that effect would be a solid start…anyone who ain’t too busy on here that is…

  • independant thinker

    “According to the National Rifle Association, 38 States currently allow the carrying of firearms if an appropriate permit is obtained.”

    If you check this is a miss-quote. The 38 number refers to the number of “shall issue” states in other words the state has to issue the ccw unless it can show why you shouldn’t have one. That leaves 11 may issue states in other words the issuance of the permit is entirely arbitrary and then Ill.

    • Sam Boes

      Independent Thinker, thanks for pointing that out. But what neither the NRA nor you pointed out is that in MANY states, there is NO PERMIT REQUIRED to carry openly: the website is about concealed carry! I can openly carry as is my GOD-GIVEN right in many states including South Dakota, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and New Mexico. For a much better look, visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry

  • http://gunner689 gunner689

    Liberal gvts. hate the Second Ammendment and will do anything to suppress it, on a State or Federal level. It’s the cornerstone to assure the rest of the Constitution exists. It’s the reset button on a repressive gvt. It’s what makes sure Americans are citizens and not subjects. Progressive globalists who owe their allegence to the UN need to get rid of the Constitution to achieve their goals of World gvt. Ill. and New York are bastions of that thought process. It may not happen in my life time but the Progressives will never stop trying. The indocrination has been going on in our schools for a decade. This is no accident but is an intentional effort by the internal enemies of this Nation. We need to be vigilant, ever vigilant to their efforts and thwart them at every occassion.

    • James

      Another constitutional idiot! Read my above comments.

      • vicki

        He appears to understand the Constitution better than you do.

  • 45caliber

    It is sad that anyone would have to go to court over this. This should never have gotten to the point where courts must make decisions like this.

    I suppose it is only that the criminals in politics in Illinois wants to make sure no one else has a gun to shoot at them when they commit a crime.

  • Scott

    Constitutional Carry!!!! No permit required as it is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Wake up people.

    • Chuck French

      Sorta makes me glad I live in VT. If you pass the NICS FBI check, you can buy a handgun, some ammo also, a holster and strap a brand new 45 on your hip and go. Strange as it seems, we have the second lowest violent crime rate per capita in the USA. Don’t find many folks trying car-jacking or break-ins up here

  • http://yahoo jowolo

    The 2nd amendment does not require permits. Shall not be infringed.

    • http://N/A A Watts

      I am a gun owner and I enjoy my rights. I am also a veteran and feel that my rights have been earned more than would be otherwise. That said I do not see permits are an infringement of my rights. I think of licensing as a means to insure that people who carry guns know gun safety and how to use them properly.
      We also have the right to peaceable assembly and that right is also by permit. That is to insure the peaceable part and to provide security and crowd control.
      As long as there is a reasonable means to obtain permits and licenses; our rights are not infringed upon. In a way it strengthens them by insuring the safety of the general population. That is a price we all pay to live in society. Otherwise we would live in anarchy and would revert to savages.

      • 12AngryMen

        So many problems with this mindset!

        1) “I am also a veteran and feel that my rights have been earned more than would be otherwise.”

        WRONG! The right to defend one’s life is a GOD-given right to all. Unless you believe that God smiles more rights on some than others, you need to seriously check yourself on that one. The best test of any argument like that is to put a blank in the noun spot. I am a ___, so I have more rights than others. Dangerous.

        2)”I do not see permits are an infringement of my rights.” This country is literally tied up in the permit process for EVERYTHING under the sun.

        3)”I think of licensing as a means to insure that people who carry guns know gun safety and how to use them properly.” Not a requirement to be a human, nor to defend one’s life.

        4)”We also have the right to peaceable assembly and that right is also by permit.” This is also crap. See #2

        5)”As long as there is a reasonable means to obtain permits and licenses; our rights are not infringed upon.” Reasonable according to who? In my county, no one except personal or political friends of the sheriff can even be considered. More regulation equals more opportunity for corruption and oppression.

        6)”In a way it strengthens them by insuring the safety of the general population.” Allowing people to defend themselves in all circumstances provides for safety.

        7)”That is a price we all pay to live in society. Otherwise we would live in anarchy and would revert to savages.” Seriously? Have you read even one word of any Founding Father? What are you doing on this website?

      • http://N/A A Watts

        To all who replied to me at this point…
        I have to ask if you d deliberately misquoted me or missed my points? I said “a reasonable means to obtain a license” I did not say that what is in place is reasonable in all cases.
        The right to self defense is a natural right; did I imply otherwise? How?
        I Also never said I have more rights than non veterans; I said I earned my rights more so that had I not been a veteran. Everybody has those same rights.
        There are many problems with the system in many places. That is well know and also why the courts need to be involved with something that should be self evident.
        If a state does not require a gun safety course prior to issuing a license, fix that!
        I may have an opinion contrary to yours; but I have every right to express it here – or don’t you think the first amendment counts here?
        Grow up, learn to listen before speaking. The time when others are speaking isn’t just for you to think of something to say.
        Oh, gun is spelled gun – why the (sic) every time I’m quoted? Do you know what (sic) means? It means “Spelling is correct” and used in quotes where the spelling is not correct, to signify the comment is a quote and not the commentors’ spelling.
        This is why I worry about people who have no training carrying a gun – that spelling is correct on its own, by the way!

      • vicki

        If you have to ask for a permission slip (permit) then it is not being treated as a right. It is being treated as a privilege that can be revoked at any time.

      • 12AngryMen

        Sir, Your response is a reaffirmation that you still do not get it.

        There is no such thing as “earning” a right.

        Training is NOT a requirement for a right. As much as it may irritate, an untrained, illiterate, backwoods punk kid that plays homicidal video games and joins the KKK has as much right to bear arms as a five-star general. NO PERMIT NECESSARY!

      • hicusdicus

        You are right. Most people have no real idea about what armed response really entails. Most of their ideas are urban myth and can ruin their lives.

      • hicusdicus

        Our leaders have already designated how we should flush the toilet. The next thing will be a permit to take a crap.

      • Larry Cowden

        I too own firearms and am also a veteran. A Watts is totally off the mark. Bloomburg and Daley pushed through restrictions so expensive and strenuous that the average person cannot obtain a permit to carry. That is a violation of the rights I have under the 2nd Amendment and it prevents thousands of others from obtaining a firearm for self defense. Permits may prevent known felons in a database from obtaining a permit. But at the same time, a skilled computer hacker can break in to any such data bank and provide a “shopping list” to any criminal of who has what gun and where they live. Do you want your name on that list? It also allows that same criminal element to “target” those homeowners that do not own guns. Gun registration is a tool to be used “against us” by the criminal element and the government in times of disaster. Or did you forget the house to house confiscation that happened in New Orleans following the Katrina disaster. Residents were sought out based on gun ownership records and deprived of their firearms at gunpoint by the law! A grandmother was deliberately shot and killed there defending her home by the local law. Hundreds of New Orleans residents are still without their legally registered firearms today and have no means of defending themselves if another Katrina occurs. Is that what you support Watts? Gun owners should be trained in the handling of firearms. I fully support training for those that want to own, keep and bear arms under their 2nd Amendment rights. I do not believe felons, mentally unstable individuals or suspected terrorists have any legal right to firearms and should be stopped.

      • Ian Michael Gumby

        A Watts is correct.
        He’s expressing his opinion. You don’t have to agree with it.

        As someone who lives in Chicago, has gone through both the permit and registration process, I can speak as to the levels of stupidity on behalf of our city.

        But I agree with A Watts with respect on registration and training requirements.

        I don’t like the fact that I have to drive out of the city to go and shoot, or that the closest outdoor range is in Wisconsin. But even at the Wisconsin range there are people who are asked to leave because they don’t know gun safety. A registration process which isn’t burdensome, and a certification process should be put in place. Or are you also objecting to FOID cards too?

      • gary brower

        I think the FOID card is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I have held a valid Indiana Concealed Carry Permit for 15years. I recently moved to Illinois and heard CC/OC is unavailable here. OK, I thought that was a right but ok. I applied for a foid card so I can at least transfer my guns to this backwards state. I received a denial letter from Illinois because I have a felony. No I don’t have a felony. I call the firearms bureau and set on hold for 1.5 hours to hear them say, Thats what we have on file…take it up with Indiana. Indiana says we have no clue what they are talking about. WTF? Soooo, I guess I’m just screwed. I carry my gun concealed and if I ever have to defend myself and get arrested I guess I will be a future plantiff against the state. I hate this state. I take that back…if we just push chicago and its liberal law makers off into the lake the rest of the state may be ok.

      • Drawer22

        @A Watts -

        1. Here are my some of my bona fides, so that you will know whereof I speak:
        a. I am a firearms owner and NRA-certified Instructor, teaching firearms safety and skills.
        b. I am a Veteran, having served 2 voluntary combat tours with Special Forces and an assignment as a Military Academy instructor, among many other assignments during my career. I empathize with your feeling that you earned the rights enjoyed, but that gives no more licensure of rights to you than any other American.
        c. I am a former law enforcement officer, having served at the municipal, county and federal levels.

        2. A permitting or licensing procedure IS an infringement on Constitutional rights when applied to rights under the 2d Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
        a. While you may “THINK of licensing as a means to insure that people who carry guns (sic) know gun (sic) safety and how to use them (sic) properly,” (emphasis added), many States rightly have no requirement that firearms safety and proper use be proven prior to issuance of a license/permit. Such administrative procedures are in place to garner money for city, county and State coffers, in addition to insuring that law-abiding citizens are in a firearms-ownership database, quite possibly for nefarious, State-sanctioned purposes.
        b. Though you cite “peaceable (sic) assembly” permit procedures, the reasons for such permits have more to do with traffic control than the possibility of subjugation, repression and oppression of otherwise law-abiding citizens, as has been historically indicated by numerous, tyrannical, brutal dictators. Even you state, regarding permits for lawful assembly, “That is to insure the peaceable part and to provide security and crowd control.” How can a permit insure that an otherwise law-abiding citizen who carries a firearm will continue to be anything other than what that person has always been?

        3. In many parts of my beloved country, there are no reasonable means to obtain a permit/license to carry a firearm, even though this right is guaranteed to all Americans as a means to insure their own safety and that of this nation.

        4.a. As applied to firearms, permitting/licensing bureaucratic procedures strengthen no one, other than the wallets of those who take money for evaluating who is “qualified” and then charging the “lucky” ones for the right to do what is Constitutionally guaranteed.
        b. A piece of permitting/licensing paper which commits a person to a State database has no way of “…insuring the safety of the general population.” That’s like saying that a Restraining Order issued by a Court of law keeps people from being victimized; in truth, it only keeps law-abiding people in a database, having no effect on those who disobey the law.

        5.a. No, it is NOT “…a price we all pay to live in society,” as some enlightened States have no provision for issuance of permits/licenses, other than to satisfy the requirements of less enlightened jurisdictions.
        b.1) The payment of a right in order to live in a civilized society is not the hallmark of any society which is civilized.
        2) Those people who live in enlightened States which do not require permitting/licensing (which is a burdensome infringement by definition) would likely – and rightly – take offense at your characterization of them as “savages.”

        Μολὼν λαβέ

      • 45caliber

        Permits are meant to prevent the poor from being able to defend themselves.

    • James

      Jowolo, The Second Amendment, just like the First Amendment, requires Congress to cease infringing on our right to bear arms.

      • vicki

        Actually only the First Amendment addressed Congress. (Congress shall make no law….) All the rest of the amendments address limitations to what powers we can delegate to ANY government entity.

        Note also that the First amendment has now been incorporated into being a limitation on all government entities as well.

  • tim

    Amazing how fast the new mayor got his job in chicago. Straight from the white house to chicagos mayoral mansion. Nothing ever changes in chicago. Home of the most white collar crime in the country.

    • Wapitiman

      Hey! Let’s not forget New Jersey. It may be legal to carry a gun with a permit…but permits are impossible to get! Ergo, it’s not legal to carry a gun. If you listen quietly, you can hear the sucking noise!

      • 45caliber

        Check out the system in NYC too.

      • http://yahoo Scooter

        All of these gun laws, according to the Constituton of the United States, are un- constitutonal as they blatantly INFRINGE upon a Citizens Right to Keep and Bear a fire arm !Armed with that in-escapable knoledge,ergo, carrying a firearm in Illinois is Not Illegal,unless of course Illinois has seceeded from the Union, persuant to THAT thought, I Really dont think the other States would miss it that much !

      • James

        Scooter, grow up. The Second Amendment is a restriction on the federal government only. What applies to Illinois is Article I, Section 22 of that State’s Constitution, which reads: “Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” If Illinoians don’t cite and use that in their court case, they won’t stand a chance. As citizens of these United States they have the unalienable right to bear arms. Any state law which infringes on that right, violates their own State’s Constitution.

      • jim

        let us not forget this GREAT new gov we have? the day he was sworn in he appointed the most left wing anti gun mad dog he could find for his AG! she did a double tap to the gun owners; killed the CMP with her buddy Fuentes (who is long over due for retirement)and is trying to kill any court hearing on concealed carry! thanks to the NRA and the state gun clubs(oh, he’s so for us!)we have this idiot and his fools to deal with! the country wants him to run for pres.? oh yeh, just think about that!he can’t even get the med law that corzine signed working! oh yeh, just think about that! you know, i’m a republican, if i had the chance to do it over, i think i would have voted for corzine.

blog comments powered by Disqus

All Categories

Bottom