Court Strikes Down Illinois' Concealed-Carry Ban

An appeals court has decided Illinois' ban on carrying a weapon in public is unconstitutional.

A U.S. appeals court has ruled Illinois' ban on carrying a weapon in public is unconstitutional, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Under the 2-1 ruling, the state would have to allow residents to carry weapons. But the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has given lawmakers 180 days 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," the Tribune reports

Illinois is the only state to not have some form of conceal carry, the Tribune said

Here are some excerpts from the court's opinion: 

"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.

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...

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 Trib lauded the decision as a major victory for the National Rifle Association.

Do you agree with the court's ruling? Tell us in the comments below!

WA Mama December 12, 2012 at 03:01 PM
I've never understood the idea of "conceal carry." If you feel that you have to carry a gun in public, in order to ensure your personal safety, WHY would you want to conceal the gun? If you want to send the message of "Don't F*** with me, or I'll shoot you," wouldn't it be a much stronger message if the gun were NOT concealed, if the gun was right out there, for all to see?
Chris December 12, 2012 at 03:35 PM
We are disinclined to notice that we are now in the 21st century, not the 18th.
Robert December 12, 2012 at 05:03 PM
its about time that Justice was done!!! Thugs carry guns, so do police. Now private Citizens can do the right thing and protect themselves!!
Michael M. December 12, 2012 at 06:03 PM
The choice to open carry or conceal carry is not up to the citizen, it is a matter of the law. Some states allow conceal carry, but make it illegal to open carry. Open carry can make people a target by morons who want to duel or draw down on you.
Michael M. December 12, 2012 at 06:05 PM
So since it is the 21st century you do not need to defend yourself? What exactly are you saying?
Michael M. December 12, 2012 at 06:06 PM
Ditto, ditto and more ditto's!!!
Hernendo RevolveR December 12, 2012 at 07:47 PM
It's about time that Illinois pulls its head out of its behind and allows its citizens to legally defend themselves!
Jon Azavedo December 12, 2012 at 09:09 PM
Chris, feel free to carry your musket in a belt holster. I prefer my PPK .380 in my back pocket.
BlackHawks Fan December 13, 2012 at 12:29 AM
It's about time; now I will not have to carry my hockey stick!!!
Arthur W. Wiggins Jr. December 13, 2012 at 01:53 AM
"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". I studied the religious aspect of the 1st Amendment at DePaul very intensely. Covering over 125 years of various court decisions. It offered a great amount of insight to how the political climate of an era can change the interpretation of the Constitution. Looking at the 2nd Amendment the language does not have any ambiguity to its purpose. I think for any court to argue whether or not the framers understood anything, discredits the purpose of the Constitution. Our Constitution was created to offer written understanding to the limits of government and the rights of the people, with the latter having substantially more importance over the former. For 40 plus years Illinois has criminalized and incarcerated U.S. citizens for exercising their Constitutional right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Look at he burden this state has put on U.S. Citizen in the form of loss. Financial, sentimental,the loss of freedom, and in some cases the loss of life. For the past 40 plus years in Illinois, if you had a firearm in your possession outside of your home you were a criminal, unless you had a badge. This is past over due. One more time for the sake of the beauty of it: "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."
Stones December 13, 2012 at 03:41 AM
Arthur, what about "a well regulated militia", exactly what does that mean?
Arthur W. Wiggins Jr. December 13, 2012 at 03:59 AM
mi·li·tia /məˈliSHə/ Noun A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency. A military force that engages in rebel activities. Our Citizen Soldier which I was a member from 1985 to 1992.
Michael M. December 13, 2012 at 04:12 AM
Each state had their own army or militia, similar to each states national guard. These troops would be called upon by the federal govt to defend the whole nation. The militia would also protect the state from an out of control federal govt. Part of the reason for the second amendment was to give the citizens the ability to fight against a govt that goes to far, kind of like the revolution, which would not have happened if the people were not armed and we would still be living under the crown of England. The right of the people also means that we have the right to defend ourselves and our property. so let me rephrase the amendment-"The govt can not infringe on the right of the state to have a well regulated militia because the militia will help to keep the state free, also the govt can not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms because that will help to keep the people free." they just wrote it in an old English style that we are not used to reading. Well regulated means a militia that has ranks, training and discipline, not one where the govt decides on the arms they bear or how they operate.
Dinkum December 13, 2012 at 08:11 PM
At issue here is not whether citizens should be allowed to defend themselves against aggression, they should. Government needs to stop interfering with personal choice and stop over-regulating behavior. And for those of you here that feel so strongly about this issue you should consider others where the government should stay out of our personal lives and wallets.
chicago December 14, 2012 at 04:25 AM


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »