14 votes

Illinois Supreme Court Declares State's Ban on Carrying Firearms Unconstitutional

It also characterized the Illinois law as "a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a personal right that is specifically named in and guaranteed by the United States Constitution…." According to the court, "In no other context would we permit this, and we will not permit it here either."

While the court noted that "we are in no way saying that such a right is unlimited or is not subject to meaningful regulation," it did not condition its holding on any further action by the legislature. It noted Illinois' recently-enacted Firearm Concealed Carry Act only in passing, stating that it was not "at issue in this case."
.
.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/9/i...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

How can a right be "subject"

How can a right be "subject" to "meaningful regulation?" That would make it not a "right," wouldn't it?

_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

I believe

but I could be wrong, but I imagine this stems from the 2008 DC vs Keller. In it, they say the 2nd is not unlimited.

ConstitutionHugger's picture

free speech

is a right but you can't scream "fire!" in a crowded place. There are a few other limits on free speech; libel, slander, inciting violence, etc.

I think this court opinion is a step in the right direction.

False analogy

You CAN scream fire in a crowded place, if there is, in fact, a fire or believe there is one. And libel and slander are PRIVATE rights of action. Restrict "inciting violence"? Not if it's mere speech you can't. Not constitutionally, anyway. Otherwise the founders would have all been in jail.

_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels