Last State Ban Against Concealed Carry Struck Down by Appeals Court
Christmas came early for law-abiding gun owners. Last Tuesday, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Illinois’ ban on carrying concealed weapons, the last remaining such ban in the country. The landmark decision gave state lawmakers six months to come up with a version of the law that legalizes concealed carry.
In contrast, one thousand miles from the Illinois state capitol, in a rare Sunday night address from Newtown, Connecticut, which preempted even the usually sacrosanct NFL, Barack Obama telegraphed — without clearly saying so — that he will create political opportunity out of tragedy by pushing for more anti-gun measures. His effort is aimed at preventing more tragedies like the one which took 26 lives at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Included among the dead were 20 young children.
The Seventh Circuit decision in Michael Moore, et al. v. Lisa Madigan, authored by Justice Richard Posner just three days before the Newtown tragedy, stated:
[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.
Before the ink was even dry on this decision, however, federal agents were searching dozens of gun stores and shooting ranges in Connecticut to determine why the mother of the Newtown shooter owned and provided access to weapons at her home, including a Bushmaster .223 rifle and two handguns. The killer murdered Nancy Lanza at home before turning his sights on the children at Sandy Hook.
In the aftermath of this senseless tragedy and the actions of a man representing evil incarnate, we are at risk of once again restricting the liberties of law-abiding citizens in the usual political rush to do “something” to prevent events that simply cannot be prevented by merely restricting gun ownership.
Connecticut already has some of the toughest restrictions on gun ownership in the country. In 2011, Connecticut was ranked the fifth-toughest state by the pro-gun control Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Gun-control advocates are pointing to the gun-control experiment in Australia as ammunition for even tougher gun laws here in America. On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists at a seaside Tasmanian resort, killing 35 and injuring 23 more. Twelve days later, led by conservative Prime Minister John Howard, Australia enacted expansive new gun controls which banned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns and included a huge buyback of 640,381 personal firearms owned by law-abiding Australians — about one-fifth of all firearms in the country. The new laws also required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners and — most controversially — that prospective purchasers of guns present a “genuine reason” for needing the gun at the time of purchase. Self-defense was legislated as an insufficient reason.
Not sure if this thing is on…
I teach at a large Central Texas high school, and I have a CHL. Currently, if attacked, I will defend your children with my highly vascularized and easily punctured internal organs, and possibly a heavy textbook and a pair of scissors. That’s long odds against a delusional young man with a head full of spiders and a gun or three. I will likely die doing what I can to save YOUR children, not mine, and it won’t be much.
I’ll try this again since some of you are unusually thickheaded – LET TEACHERS WITH CHL CARRY ON CAMPUS – CHL holders train more often than the police, have a better record for both accuracy of fire and obeying the law than the police, and they do it on their own dime. The only ones who will carry on campus are the ones who know that can do what is necessary come that dark day.
No more soft targets. No more goddamned soft targets.
As I stated in response to another commenter, the teacher should certainly be allowed to legally carry in the classroom. But you are should only be considered a second line of defense. The first line starts at the door of the school and not at the door of your classroom where you are busy with your duties. Put armed and trained full-time personnel in the halls and at the entrances. These people can be found among retired military or police personnel. They could be volunteers. Crackpots who intend to harm our children in any way should never make it to the classroom nor the interior of the building. Then take down the sappy “gun free zone” signs and put up “armed security present” signs. If my school district starts such a program I will volunteer as I am qualified to do so.
The trouble is you don’t understand the goals of gun control advocates. They know the arguments and they can’t counter the facts like Connecticut having some of the most onerous gun control in the country – and still this happened.
It really isn’t about gun control – its about PEOPLE control.
You got that right!
TX educator, indeed. And then you will be able to protect the kiddies, not unlike in Israeli schools where there are armed guards posted, good shots too, IDF trained and all! – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/12/18/pa-prez-abbas-commiserates-with-islamist-in-chief-obama-over-slaughter-of-innocents-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
And those who opine that a ‘gun free’ school zone will keep the kiddies safe have forgotten to tell that to the killers who stalk their halls, picking off the children, one by one!
Alas, if TOTAL control is the goal then the left has a point – gut the Second Amendment. But if saving the innocents is the plan, then carry your legal weapons, left be damned!
My wife commented that a teacher’s certificate should include firearms training. She’s politically moderate, but sees the absurdity of the killing fields that have been created in our gun-free zones.
The argument goes like this. My son, except for being under 18, has taken all the required training to qualify for a concealed-carry permit. (Here in Larimer County, Colorado, that’s a hunter safety course and a clean FBI/CBI record.) However, the Federal Government has taken away his fundamental right to defend himself. Therefore, the government should assume responsibility for his safety.
The irony is that the Government, having created the schools’ killing fields, cannot be sued for failing to protect our children.
The only way you can ‘misinterpret’ The Second Amendment is if you happen to be a sophist, where the meanings of words change according to what you want them to mean.
The ‘well regulated militia’ clause does not preclude or supplant the right of individuals to own or carry firearms. If I’m not one of ‘the People,’ wth am I? Chopped liver? Mebbe you are, I dunno…
Read this…
http://www.justice.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf
Yeah, but MI Gov. Snyder is a coward/fool.
The problem isn’t only in the schools – it is in theaters, malls, bars and restaurants, offices, the streets. The only way to ensure safety (the NRA and GOA tell us) is to enable everyone to have a gun. Where is the country or circumstance in which this is true? Name it. It sure isn’t Israel or Switzerland so don’t bother going there. Perhaps Yemen or Somalia are the examples we should be following.
What kind of society is being advocated here? One in which we all live in fear of our armed neighbors, where we are only civil and follow the Ten Commandments because we are afraid of getting shot?
In no way do I advocate Second Amendment infringement, but a simple “more guns” solution cannot be the answer to what ails our society.
“What kind of society is being advocated here?”
A polite one.
If you’re that afraid of your fellow citizens, I recommend some time in therapy.
Brutus;
No one advocates a society where everyone is only civil because they fear their armed neighbor. All rational people advocate a society where people are civil because it is the proper, human thing to do. The state, in the form of police and other public safety groups, cannot assure our personal safety. In fact, when seconds count, the police are usually minutes (at the very least) away. Some members of our society do not always act in a civil manner and each citizen should have a right to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their property. So the responsibility of self defense rests on each person. Our founding fathers understood this when they included the second amendment in our constitutionally guaranteed rights, it is unfortunate that you do not.
Please Mr. Crawford and Stormbringer, where is does this society you wish for exist? A fully armed society in which peace and well-being was ensured because everyone had a gun has never existed in our country, and certainly no where else. This is a radical departure from what America is and has been. There must be a better solution than “more guns”. We certainly didn’t hear it from the NRA today. I respect your positions, but we must have more than “more guns”. Thanks for your replies.
There seems to be some all-or-nothing thinking going on here. There is no need, and no one is advocating, arming everyone with a pulse. In shall-issue states, many citizens do carry a firearm, but not as many as popular mythology would indicate. I seem to remember hearing that something less than 3% of eligible Texas residents actually obtain a permit (Yes, I have one). The percentage of folks who keep a firearm handy in their home is no doubt much higher.
In Texas, “Hot” burglaries (while the building is occupied), for example, occur far less frequently than in say, Illinois. Also personal assaults tend to be far fewer, because potential assailants are aware that many citizens are armed. Basically, a potential criminal has to ask himself, is the intended victim armed with a concealed pistol? Will the homeowner confront him with a carbine or shotgun? Just which of these folks is packing? Best not to find out the hard way. Far safer for an aspiring burglar to just drive to California or New York to ply his trade.
Anyway, even with the most liberal (ahem) rules for permit issue, only a small percentage of the population will actually carry. These tend to be folks with the interest and dedication to properly select a weapon, learn to use and maintain it, and to know the laws and principles involved with its use. As pointed out above, these self selected citizens do, on average, maintain higher skills than the police. Given the potential criminal’s dillemma with figuring out who is armed and who is not, and the real deterrent effect of getting shot instead of succeeding in the commission of a crime, a small number of self-selected defenders is enough to suppress a great deal of criminal activity.
So. Where is the society with armed citizenry which REDUCES violent crime? (There is no “eliminate” in this imperfect world, and no one has claimed there will be). It is indeed in Texas, Utah, Arizona, New Hampshire, Florida, etc. For validation, compare FBI crime stats in shall-issue states with those in “gun-free” (Read: Self-Defense-free) zones such as Illinois, DC, NYC, etc. The odds of avoiding victimhood are a damned sight better in the armed areas of the country than in the dis-armed ones. Personally, I’ll happily accept those improved odds.
You poor person! What a terribly traumatic world it must be for you.
I live in a concealed carry state. Everywhere I go, I could be walking alongside someone with a gun. So what? It’s not like I have to duck and cover to avoid a dozen different gun battles. If I want that, there are certain areas of town we all know to avoid, and those guns aren’t legal most of the time. Or, I load up a video game, but that’s another issue.
I fear you are incorrect about something:
Because of that absurd saying from Heinlein, there are too many who subscribe to the idea of “an armed society is a polite society”, and believe that fear of an armed response from a neighbor is the only legitimate definition of civility.
I agree with you otherwise in terms of how a civil, polite, and armed society should be constituted, and how that tracks with the beliefs and intent of the Founders.
Sadly, I see too few others out there who actually embrace it and can articulate it in the way that you do.
It’s not absurd at all. It’s the unarmed society where the strong abuse the weak.
“Polite society” is a metaphor for one where petty invidiousness and abuse is rare, the opposite of the “crazy years” he felt we were heading towards.
What’s absurd is the notion an armed society would not be so “polite”.
It is completely absurd, and is demonstrated on a constant basis by armed societies that are the height of incivility.
Might I direct your attention to Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton?
Or shall I instead summarize the career of Andrew Jackson?
All well-armed men indeed, and all who wound up in duels precisely because of obnoxious language. I guess they and those around them somehow missed the memo that because they were an armed society that they were all polite.
You cannot cure stupid, Brutus. You are, therefore diagnosed with a potentially fatal case of it.
American citizens who understand liberty and the cost to maintain it are not the threat to you, personnaly. Some such citizens have accepted fully thier responsibility to protect themselves and their loved ones and, in accordance with their inalienable human right to do so, have elected to responsibly carry a firearm on their person.
The word is liberty, Brutus. Not libertine, as you of the progressive left have come to understand the concept.
There have been several more interventions in attempted mass murders in ths country by armed citizens in the years since Columbine than there has by police forces. You may one day owe your life to a man or woman who acts to save you from a crazy with an illegal gun. The crazy will not be deterred by law, and if you happen to be in a gun free zoned shooting gallery, then your only hope will be that he runs out of ammo.
This post violates the rules, here. Brutus is posting politely, and you are not, when you call him fatally stupid. You need to apologize to him.
As to Brutus, what do you care if your law-abiding neighbor carries a gun? You are not in danger from him. In fact, he offers you protection from the non-law-abiding. You need not be polite to him, just because he carries a gun, because he is not going to use it recklessly. It is not in his nature.
It’s not the gun; It’s the man. The criminals will always get a gun if they need one. The question here is if the decent people will be allowed guns or not. Shall we allow deent people to be helpless before the criminal? Why do you wish that upon me?
I suggest this to you: Go buy a gun and get trained in its use. Meet the people who own and carry guns. Get some hands-on experience, then come back and opine further. I think you simply lack the proper experience and knowledge, and that is why you hold the position you do.
God made man equal before Him. Samuel Colt made man equal before other men.
I grew up in an area where everyone already had guns. Neighbors were friendly to neighbors. No one feared being out at night, because there was zero crime—at least in the last hundred years I’ve never heard of a crime there.
“What kind of society is being advocated here? One in which we all live in fear of our armed neighbors, where we are only civil and follow the Ten Commandments because we are afraid of getting shot? ”
The solution is to allow people their freedom, mind your own business, and stop the feds from creating problems that need to be solved, ie drug war, poverty, Prozac, etc.
The “Wild West” was a actually a pretty safe place if you stayed out of the saloons…which proves as we all know …..guns and booze don’t mix.
The second amendment is perfectly clear, unless you decide to redefine “militia” and totally ignore “shall not be infringed.” Oh, right, we’re there.
Emotionally, I can agree with an assault weapon ban when I see gun masacres occurring on seemingly regular intervals, but then I see the following:
The two largest massacres in recent history (Virginia tech, Sandy Hook) were committed by mental cases who should have been committed. Our gun laws don’t need changing, our mental health laws do!
Union thugs threaten and assault their opponents on a regular basis, and threaten the children of their opponents, but the liberal media just yawns and the powers that be could care less.
Prominent left wingers like Harry Belafonte think that Obama should put his opponents in camps.
Obama thinks nothing of letting Mexican children die by allowing guns to walk across the border to make a point, and spare me his tears: when Hassan massacred soldiers at Fort Hood, Obama yukked it up and gave shout outs before addressing this tragedy at a press conference. To this day, Hassan has not been brought to justice by an army brass that was more concerned about military diversity than dead soldiers.
So when you take stock of how law-abiding Americans are faced with left wing fascist wannabes with an army of union thugs and jihadist buddies, and an ACLU that won’t let us violate the rights of the mental defectives by committing them, thereby letting them commit mayhem against our children, you can understand why gun rights should be vehemently defended. One day, they may be our last defense against these criminal loving, terrorist coddling, psychopath enabling liberals.
The best analysis I’ve seen all week. My first fear was that the shooter in Newtown might be near ‘normal’. He wasn’t, again. My second fear what that the left would try to exploit the crisis, and they have. The third fear was that people like Brutus above wouldn’t remember a time when guns were left in gun racks in trucks all the time. When people could leave their house unlocked or the keys in their cars.
What we’re witnessing is the classic “trading liberty for security” which means we shall have neither, ultimately. Those folks at the school traded their right to carry a weapon for the ‘security’ of a sign: Gun Free Zone. People trade the liberty of a job for the security of a government check. In classic tradition, when the money runs out, they’ll have neither.
At which time, the Bolsheviks will come running to the rescue. You think the well-to-do have been vilified by this President today, you haven’t seen nothing. What today’s commies don’t want just yet is for this thing to get into the streets, not yet, anyway. Those pesky guns will have to go first- AWB1,AWB2,AWB3, etc.
Brown shirt thuggery would come to an abrupt end! Of course hugo-bama would be against concealed weapons!
What kind of country would I like to live in? One where when the bullets fly, or the machete is wielded that someone has a gun and takes out the perp. Let people have concealed carry and the criminals and the wackos will have to think twice about who can defend themselves. As it is now, people in gun free zones are stilling ducks. Well I prefer not to be duck soup.
And to the people who living in the killing zone that is Chicago, how is that workin’ out for ya? Oh, they’re just black people being killed, so they’re not important.
Above all,this is a woman’s issue!
I’ve lived around guns all my life in Texas. The only time I’ve see guns used for crimes was during a stay in Chicago.
Do gun control laws work? Ask Rahm Emanuel how well Illinois’ gun control laws work to keep the guns from gangs.
That being said, Connecticut has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, but whaT
but what good do guns laws do when they are not enforced. The shooter broke at least 3 laws. I feel that no new gun laws should be passed until the current laws are enforced. If the politicians feel new laws are needed, then they can consider them. Laws that are not enforced are worthless and new gun control laws will be worthless unless enforced.
How many children have been killed in Chicago, with a gun ban, this year? Far more than 26. He is such a hypocrit.
Ok fine. You go first.
After Nancy Pelosi has no armed security.
After Harry Reid’s bodyguards have no guns.
After President Obama orders the Secret Service to be unarmed.
Then I will consider their position on gun control. Not before.
Thank you for the fine article Mr.Wickert, and also providing me with enough common sense to get a concealed weapon permit and a hand gun.A big decision for me,but now obviously a correct one!
Heard this one?
A state trooper stopped a 95 year old woman on the Interstate. While checking her driver’s licence noticed she has a concealed carry permit. Asked whether she was carrying weapons. Oh yes she said, a 45 Smith and Wesson in the glove compartment, a 357 magnum in the console, and a 38 special in my purse.
The trooper asked, Lady, What are you afraid of?
She said, “Not a damn thing”.
The big problem as i see it is that you are all right in a way,total gun bans dont work look at Chicago 292 killed from 1st of Jan to 24th July this year remember they have a total gun ban,yes you need to tighten up on who can have and who cannot
Mental Health needs looking at as does security,the big problem is that the antis
dont want to listen to any ideas except banning you cannot uninvent something that is out there in my country the UK they banned Handgus in 97 armed crime has gone up by 150% since then (figures from the Chief Contstable of Essex) as usual its a case of bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted, Is there an answer i dont think so.
The Heller decision couldn’t have had a bearing on the relationship between the federal Second Amendment, and the rights of sovereign states to make their own laws regarding firearms pursuant to the individual state’s constitution and the wishes of the citizens of said state as expressed in electoral outcomes…since there was no state represented by either side in the dispute.
” First, there is a dispute regarding whether the Amendment limits federal action only, or also state gun laws.”
There is no dispute. The USSC ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in the Heller decision.
From Wikipedia: McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms” protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
Your statement is factually incorrect and should be amended.
AjdShootist
“…..the UK they banned Handgus in 97 armed crime has gone up by 150% since then (figures from the Chief Contstable of Essex)…..”
(sarc/) What? That’s not what that very, very, polite, talking head Piers Morgan claims. (sarc\)
Y’know thet limey that interrupts, shouts down guests that don’t agree with his fantasies.
It was truly a thing of beauty to watch that video clip of Morgan tryin’ that out on Ted Nuggent.
Here in politically correct Canada, after having an armed home invasion, I became aware of the high incidence of home invasions, seems that was not report by the media…..targeting those with registered forearms….seems the “secure” firearms registry was not all that secure….Even to this day I have been called a liar, about being a victim. One clown actually declared the copy of the Police Report was counterfeit….but wouldn’t call the cops.
These folks who talk about being in fear of their armed neighbours are engaging in, what psychiatry calls, PROJECTION…they fear their neighbour could do what they would do.
Then there was that anonymous “neighbour” who SWATTED a fella because he had a Romney sign on his lawn.
Armed good people, in excess of armed bad people, will always win.
Look to Israel for how they issue terrorist warnings to their civilian populace encouraging them to carry their side arms and be on watch for armed terrorists. Lanza was an armed terrorist bent on savage and ruthless killing of innocent, defensless women and children.
1 they would be alive if conceal carry people were exercising their 2nd amendment right.
‘Gun Free Zone’ signs work as well as ‘White Tailed Deer Crossing’ signs. Think about it. Then think again. Got it!? White tailed deer can read and care about signs as much as criminals intent on killing.
One full mag
One round in the chamber
Firearm on safe, on the hip.
Two back up mags ready to go.
2 somebody show me how many times in our history that a law abiding card carrying no criminal record individual with a conceal carry license just all of a sudden became a violent criminal preditor and randomly decided to kill defensless innocent women and children.
I’ve owned firearms for 4 years, no inclination to harm anyone but rather to serve and protect my family my life my beliefs, my property, and my neighbours. In not saying its never ever happened, I’m just saying that if everyone’s packing, and you have a rare case where someone does actually have a meltdown, in a crowded area there’s probably at least a few other conceal carry’s willing to take care of matters quickly.
3 also somebody on the left needs to point out balanced stats regarding how many time a gun was used to stop a murderous killing of any quantity. Funny how people only use stats to justify their opinion and stance.
I teach my kids that that is called ‘lying by omission’.
ALL the facts are nessessary in a debate.
Of course the liberal media doesn’t present these stats because it doesn’t support their left leaning narrative.
3 This is a story from Paul Harvey on Gun Control
Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that
because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment
don’t matter?
CONSIDER: In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929
to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5
million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1938 to 1945, 13
million Jews. gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others who
were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one
million “uneducated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.
That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at
approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from
the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun
control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.”
Now, I know the easiest comeback from people like you when confronted with these inconvenient facts is “Well, it can’t happen here.” And I ask you, why not? The people in our government are just people, the same as the ones who did those heinous acts listed above, and just like those people listed above, I’m sure they’ll do what they do “for the greater good.” In fact, we hear a lot from the left about the good of the collective these days which is very much “for the greater good,” so don’t tell us that the 2nd Amendment is unecessary. It is one of those checks and balances that were loaded heavily into our COTUS to keep the government in its cage, and no matter what you might think, humans are still human and still subject to the same failings as they were in the days of the Founders.
Uh ohhhh.
We’d better ban Geely Sedans and Kitchen Knives.
Or…. Maybe not.
It’s not the tools, it’s the person. Bad people will always find a way to murder if their heart desires it, they will find a way regardless of banning the weapon of choice. Are we to ban pens and pencils? I’m sure someone has used these tools to murder before! Are they now called “Assault Pens and Pencils”? Come on!!!! Give your head a serious shake.
@DRUDGE_REPORT: Man distraught over daughter’s murder mows down 23 middle-school students… http://t.co/2KKIEg47
Where I live (in Florida), the school gates are locked when the bell rings. No one can get into the schools, except the administration area. Everyone who wants to visit has to get a visitor pass first.
I don’t think that’s extreme, and it would prevent teachers from having to carry guns in the classroom, which I’m not sure is such a great idea, though I am pro concealed carry. People should have the right to carry, if they want to, not the onus of carrying whether they want to or not.