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!

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 »