New IL CCW Law - Chicago PD Directive

[JTHunter]

Dframe - with the new Illinois Supreme Court rulings, the entire state may have lost both!

Read the PDF of "People vs. Aguilar" at this site.
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/recent_supreme.asp
Many people are opining that this may even open the door for "open carry".

 

[rockhopper46038]

Looking at the IL Supreme Court decision in light of the delay that IL has imposed on issuing the court ordered carry licenses - isn't IL as of this moment, a Constitutional Carry state?

 

[Trent]

Perhaps. The UUW law was effectively killed by the 7th. The Aggravated UUW law was just effectively killed by the Supreme court.

HOWEVER.. the Legislature modified UUW with the passage of the concealed carry bill, allowing for an exemption for permit holders.

Which means the original UUW is dead, BUT it still exists in resurrected form as part of the concealed carry bill.

A judge would have no choice but to convict you, based on the new form of UUW that is on the books. (A jury, well, up to how good your lawyer is and how sympathetic they are.)

How your subsequent conviction of a felony UUW would withstand during appeals ... ??

Aggravated UUW is partly dead now thanks to the new supreme court ruling. I think the part about machineguns still stands, unfortunately.

 

[Trent]

Perhaps MORE interestingly...

Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon was just found unconstitutional by the IL supreme court. Since it was JUST included in the BODY of the new law (quoting here)

Sec. 24-1.6. Aggravated unlawful use of a weapon.
(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated unlawful use
of a weapon when he or she knowingly:
<snip>
(3) One of the following factors is present:
(A) the firearm, other than a pistol, revolver, or
handgun, possessed was uncased, loaded, and
immediately accessible at the time of the offense; or
(A-5) the pistol, revolver, or handgun possessed
was uncased, loaded, and immediately accessible at the
time of the offense and the person possessing the
pistol, revolver, or handgun has not been issued a
HB0183 Enrolled LRB098 05760 MGM 35799 b
Public Act 098-0063
currently valid license under the Firearm Concealed
Carry Act; or
<snip>

This raises an interesting possibility.

In order to modify the Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons law to work with the new law, they incorporated the entire text in to the new law. By incorporating the entirety of the Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons code in to the Firearm Concealed Carry Act... well, it basically overwrote everything in there before; Aggravated UUW became part of the new law.

This is important.

Because.. the new Firearm Concealed Carry Act that was passed... was passed with such haste, it lacks severability. (Whoops, small oversight on their part).

Normally, they DO include severability language in really big, complex bills.. just in CASE some part of it is found unconstitutional.

They FORGOT this time.

Duh.

(One could now argue that ALL firearms law, excepting FOID act, is nullified because there is no severability and a piece of the law was found unconstitutional.)

 

[Trent]

There is precedent for striking down entire laws in Illinois, which are found to be unconstitutional.

"Clearly, the 1970 Constitution removed the severability provision that existed in the 1870 Constitution. We therefore reject the State's invitation to construe the two provisions as if they were the same."

"For the foregoing reasons, we hold that defendants have standing to challenge the constitutionality of Public Act 88-669. We find that Public Act 88-669 violates the single subject clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV, §8), and therefore hold that Public Act 88-669 is void in its entirety. The judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed"

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2005/December/Opinions/Html/98932.htm

The litmus test to apply based on People Vs. Olender is this: "Can the act be fixed by subsequent legislation or amendment".

Considering that they JUST passed an amendment modifying the law, which was found to be unconstitutional (again) by the Supreme Court...

The Supreme Court passed down their opinion on Aggravated UUW ---- AFTER ---- the governor signed the amendments to Aggravated UUW in to law.

So the ruling by the IL supreme court has to be considered valid on the amended law, which was in place and effective at the time of the Supreme Court opinion.

 

[NickEllis]

Huh. How does that interesting information get verified legally? Does it require someone to push on it?

 

[junglebob]

Goon, thanks for your encouragement to us Illinoisans. One thing better in our concealed carry law is it says the gun must be concealed or mostly concealed. If your gun prints or the you bend over or the wind blows and your cover garment allows your gun to be seen you are still within the law. That is better than Texas law I understand, correct me if things have changed.

Someone mentioned not traveling through because they couldn't carry in a motel. Carry on private property is permitted with permission. You can also keep a loaded gun in your motel/hotel room as it is your abode. Now the question is would the motel allow you to carry from the parking lot to your room?

 

[junglebob]

On the firearms makers in Illinois, isn't DSA in that state?
I've heard they have had QC issues lately. Maybe they should move to a gun-friendly state and rehire.

And though the new ILL law isn't perfect, it's progress. Take just a second to lean back in your lawn chair and sip your beer. Job well done.
Even in Texas, there was a time when you couldn't legally carry concealed.

Goon, in your post #66 the comments encouraging us Illinoisans were appreciated. Yes it took us a long time to finally get carry. There is one thing in our carry law that I believe is better than in Texas, correct me if I'm wrong on this. The law says you have to have your gun concealed or mostly concealed, so if you bend over or the wind blows your cover garment exposing your handgun you are OK. In Texas printing isn't acceptable, correct. We did get a shall issue law unlike some eastern states.