Hopalong
Man of Many Nicknames
And, it was 9-0, basically agreeing with the 7th circuit. Not 7-2, not 6-3, but 9-0. No one even wanted to waste time on a dissent.
And coming out of Illinois? That is HUGE.
And, it was 9-0, basically agreeing with the 7th circuit. Not 7-2, not 6-3, but 9-0. No one even wanted to waste time on a dissent.
And coming out of Illinois? That is HUGE.
It ought to help. Only problem is the circuits that rule against us are so wishy-washy with the outside the home question that we don't get a definitive split. I believe CA2-4 are desperately doing this to avoid taking a stand and having SCOTUS step in.
We'll see with Woollard very soon.
And note that the court reversed a conviction under the old statute declared unconstitutional. That basically means that anyone convicted of the old statute now declared unconstitutional may seek post-conviction relief. If they have not yet been convicted but merely charged, those charges under the old statute must now be dropped. This means, as a practical matter, that the old statute may not now be enforced at all. That leaves Illinois in a interesting positon vis a vis the adminstration of their new statute.
I'm not up to the specifics of their new CCW law. How would this affect it? Does it basically mean anyone lawfully owning a gun can carry in public?
Unless I'm missing something, under the old law, no carry was permitted. Under the new law, concealed carry is permitted, but only with a proper license.
Under Aguilar and Moore, you can't be prosecuted for UUW or AUUW, because the laws violates the 2A. Except, the new law says with a permit, you can carry, albeit concealed.
That appears to leave open carry (at the moment) as the only viable means of carry, until the permitting process is actually established (up and running). Even then, it may mean that unfettered open carry will still remain a viable means of carry.
Before anyone starts to carry, they should consult counsel, who would need to do a careful parsing of the implications of the ruling.
I had understood it (and don't rely on this), the new law is an exception to the total ban imposed by the old law, which remains on the books. If the old law is unconstitutional, that means that the new law's premise is flawed. Very interesting
So, with the old statute completely invalidated, the decision in Moore, and the new law's reliance upon the old statute, is IL boxed into a corner?I am just speculating here, not calling for anyone to carry.
It is being reported that all of the various States Attorneys are in a "huddle" as to what this all means. They are not speaking to citizens as to what the impact of Moore, the new carry law, and now what the IL Supreme Court has said in regards Aguilar. This is being widely reported and talked about over at Illinois Carry.
Hence my speculation. I should have been more clear.