You aren't looking big picture I think.
Time, place, and manner restrictions were not addressed in the ruling; Posner just said they had to "allow public carry" and it couldn't be "may-issue". Nothing was said about defining public transportation as off limits, or public parks, or within "x" distance of a school, or in public buildings, or having signage have force of law as opposed to simply allowing for a trespass if the carrier ignores it, is caught, and then refuses to leave. Nothing was said about barring carry on private property without the owner's express (written) permission. Nothing was said about holsters being required to be level 2 or higher. Nothing was said about barring OC, or criminalizing even brief accidental exposure. Nothing was said about allowing employers to bar "parking lot carry". Nothing was said about barring carry in public stadiums, or college campuses, or state fairs, or county fairgrounds. Nothing was said about ammunition type restrictions like NJ, or capacity limits like most of the "may-issue" states.
Nothing in the ruling forbid training requirements, or high-ish fees, or regular requals, or "safety inspections" like Pennsylvania. In Alaska in our initial carry law we had to qualify by action type and caliber. If you wanted to carry a revolver, you had to qual with a revolver, if you wanted to carry a semi-auto, you had to qualify with one: and you could only carry a caliber (not power level, bullet nominal diameter) in each action type that you qual'ed with or smaller; Posner's ruling is mute on that subject.
This is where the rest of us, with our experience of how shall-issue laws have evolved over the past 30 years, are coming from. You appear to be looking at the House bill like it is horrible because it doesn't match "Shall-issue" laws as they are currently in most states, when it is merely a typical early '90s law that many of us lived through improving over time and view pragmatically because of that.
And you appear to be looking at court carry like it can only be positive without considering all the crap that can be added as restrictions without violating the Posner order and which have been upheld thus far in the other circuits.
It is not internally consistent to take a "worst-case" view of the House bill and a Pollyanna view of court carry, especially given how bad you know IL politics can be. The House bill had limits on how bad it could get, and had the plusses of preemption and removal of home rule. Court carry has no effective restrictions as long as you can carry on your own land without a permit. Everything else is up for restriction and the anti's have a laundry list of past and existing restrictions, many already supported as Constitutional at the Circuit level, they can pile on.
Actually I am. Previously I posted:
All I hear is that "otherwise we'd get Kwame's bill". Really?!?!? That's enough of the 68 that voted for HB997 would flip? Then what's fuckign point of having elections? If what Mike Madigan wants is what Mike Madigan gets, then the ILGA is just a big *expletive deleted* joke and state .gov is a big farce.
Yet, we'll be able to "fix" this later-on.
Well which is it boys and girls. Mike Madigan rules with an iron fist or we can improve this later? 'Cause it sure can't be both.
The democrats have a supermajority in both houses and re-drew the election map in 2010, pretty much cutting out quite a few "R" seats. The gains the "D's" made weren't downstate where they are "Reagan Democrats". The seats were added to Chicago and Cook County. We went from 64D/54R in the House to 71D/47R and 35D/24R in the Senate to 40D/19R. If all democrats vote for something there's nothing the republicans can do to stop it. And it's not going to get better by the next census. Barring a total meltdown, the D's have this state locked up for the foreseeable future and probably longer.
We are the last state to get carry and if there hadn't been a 7thCA court ruling, we still wouldn't have it. Sure Madigan might have allowed a vote on Phelps' carry bill (like he does every year), but only when he's sure that it doesn't have the votes to pass. Same with "Make it better later". This ain't Alaska or Arizona or any other state. This is Illinois, the land of one party rule and it's dominated by Madigan and Cullerton. (Nobody pays attention to Quinn).
There will be no improvements or fixes to either of these bad bills.
Home Rule: Home Rule entities cannot create felonies. Only fines and misdemeanors. Will getting arrested by a pain in the ass. Yes. But we do have a very, very strong precedent to cite.
Ezell. That's where according to Judge Pozner, the City of Chicago tried to be "too cute by half" by requiring a live fire qualification then proceeding to ban all ranges. The ruling stated that "the closer the activity to the basic right the stricter the scrutiny." http://ia700507.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.113.0.pdf
They are going to have real hard time explaining to the court why they are banning carry at the local level when banning carry at the state level is unconstitutional.
The only down side is that we will have to go to every home rule meeting to fight these ordinances. However pointing out that 1983 lawsuits are a distinct possibility might be enough to prevent passage. And as it stands the only Home Rule community that has an ordinance drafted is Cook County. It's a may issue/no-issue system and has so many flaws the court will once again take great joy in slapping it down. Especially since they gave the state 180 days ot "fix it" and they haven't.
Also we don't have to get arrested to file a a pre-enforcement challenge to any of these ordinances. Again from
Ezell:
Moreover, this is a preenforcement challenge to the Ordinance.The plaintiffs contend that the City’s ban on firing ranges is wholly incompatible with the Second Amendment. It is well established that “preenforcement challenges . . . are within Article III.” Brandt v.Vill. of Winnetka,Ill. ,612F.3d647,649(7thCir.2010). Theplaintiffs need not violate the Ordinance and risk prosecution in order to challenge it. Schirmer v. Nagode, 621F.3d581,586(7thCir. 2010)(“A person need not riskarrest before bringing a pre enforcement challenge . . . .”). The very “existence of a statute implies a threat to prosecute, so pre enforcement challenges are proper, because a probability of future injury counts as ‘injury’ for the purpose of standing.” Bauer,620 F.3dat708
And we won't have litigate all of them. Just some. A couple of wins and the rest fall like dominoes. Anyone that thought it would be all rainbows and unicorn farts for gunowners after Illinois passed a LTC/CCW law (especially without preemption) was smoking crack.
Also the SB2193 is not "Shall Issue" Sen Forby states: "If any law enforcement agency state, county, or something, if somebody asks for a permit they can go against this person." That will be used in court by the anti's as "legislative intent", for when the ISP, Cook County Sheriff and the CPD deny everyone a permit. Go to about 1:50:00 on this. He says it around 1:54:00.
http://new.livestream.com/blueroomstream/events/2135929Yes, it would invalidate all home rule gun ordinances, in exchange for no-issue. Both the ISRA and the NRA are neutral on this bill. The Kwame (Senate) bill is basically the same no-issue bill as the house bill except for no preemption. Both the NRA and ISRA are against this bill.
