Click For Photo: https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Concealed-Carry.jpgClick For Photo: https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Concealed-Carry-600x399.jpg
Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- The Supreme Court of Illinois has ruled that a state ban on carrying guns within a 1,000 feet of a park is obviously unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because it “directly implicates the core right of self-defense”.
Yesterday - Illinois - Supreme - Court - State
Yesterday the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a state ban on carrying guns within 1,000 feet of a public park violates the constitutional right to bear arms. The decision in People v. Chairez extends the logic of prior rulings by the same court and by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit holding that Second Amendment rights exist outside the home and cannot be categorically restricted without a strong justification.
The decision is a number of pages long, and is well written. For those who do not have the time to read it in its entirety, this paragraph explains the logic of the court. From People v. Chairez at illinoiscourts.gov:
State - Core - Right - Amendment - Court
We believe the State defines the core right protected by the second amendment too narrowly. According to this court’s holding in Aguilar, neither Heller nor McDonald expressly limited the second amendment protections to the home. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116, ¶¶ 18-20. To the contrary, both Heller and McDonald at least strongly suggest that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home. Id.¶ 20. Moreover, the State’s reliance on Skoien—which did not involve the core self-defense component of the right to bear arms—is misplaced. We find that the 1000-foot firearm restriction at issue more closely resembles the restrictions at issue in Ezell I, Ezell II, Moore, and Aguilar. In fact, the 1000-foot firearm restriction not only directly implicates the core right to self-defense, it does so more severely than the regulations at issue in the Ezell cases. That is so because section 24-1(a)(4), (c)(1.5) of the UUW...
Wake Up To Breaking News!