http://www.chicagotribune.com/...-20180201-story.html

Illinois Supreme Court finds state gun ban near parks unconstitutional

by Steve Schmadeke
Contact Reporter Chicago Tribune
Feb 2, 2018

The Illinois Supreme Court took another bite out of the state’s gun laws on Thursday, ruling that a provision barring firearms near public parks is unconstitutional.

The high court’s unanimous ruling builds on a series of cases it has decided since 2013, when it struck down a portion of the state’s felony gun law that calls for serious penalties for anyone caught toting a loaded gun outside their home. The justices ruled that section of the state law violated the Second Amendment right to publicly carry loaded firearms. In a separate ruling two years later, justices further clawed back the law — this time setting aside restrictions to carrying loaded guns on the streets, sidewalks and other “public ways.”

Thursday’s ruling doesn’t address — and therefore lets stand — other parts of the state’s gun law, which prohibits firearms within 1,000 feet (about a city block) of schools, courthouses, public transportation facilities or public housing. The justices did not rule on guns carried near those locations on technical grounds.

The ruling also did not address the state’s broad bans on felons or minors carrying guns or guns carried inside sensitive locations.

Even with the 1,000-foot ban near parks — which legislators added to existing state law in 1993 — some of the city’s most notorious gun violence has rained down on public parks.

Hadiya Pendleton was fatally shot while taking shelter from the rain at Harsh Park five years ago. Tyshawn Lee had been playing basketball in Dawes Park when he was allegedly lured into an alley and killed by gang members in 2015, prosecutors have said. And 13 people — including a 3-year-old boy — were shot by gunmen firing semiautomatic weapons at Cornell Square Park in 2013.

Illinois has worked hard to be a gun-control state, only to have the courts chip away at that. Indeed, Illinois was the last state in the union to pass a concealed-carry law – and only because a federal appeals court forced the state’s hand.

Thursday’s decision, written by Chief Justice Lloyd Karmeier, arose from the 2013 conviction of Julio Chairez, who pleaded guilty to possessing a gun within 1,000 feet of a park in west suburban Aurora. He was sentenced in Kane County Circuit Court to two years’ probation.

Chairez’s attorney on appeal said the law was unconstitutional because of the burden it placed on law-abiding citizens exercising their right to carry a gun.

A law-abiding person could be driving with a gun in their glove box past a park and not realize it, unfairly setting them up to violate the law, Chairez’s attorney, Erin Johnson, of the state appellate defender’s office, said during oral arguments last fall.

“We’re saying its unconstitutional everywhere because no one in Illinois would be able to travel throughout the state without entering these zones which are not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest,” she argued at the time.

Attorneys for the state argued that the 1,000-foot ban — and others like it — go back centuries and fall outside the protections of the Second Amendment.

Assistant Attorney General Garson Fischer emphasized law-abiding citizens could still exercise their right to bear arms.

“This is not a comprehensive ban on carrying a weapon,” Assistant Attorney General Garson Fischer said. Just stay away from parks, he argued.

The justices were not persuaded.

“Innocent behavior could swiftly be transformed into culpable conduct if an individual unknowingly crosses into a firearm restriction zone,” Karmeier wrote in the Supreme Court’s decision. “The result could create a chilling effect on the second amendment when an otherwise law-abiding individual may inadvertently violate the 1000-foot firearm-restricted zones by just turning a street corner.”

The Supreme Court also found that the state had failed to provide evidence that the ban on guns near parks kept children safe.

“Without specific data or other meaningful evidence, we see no direct correlation between the information the State provides and its assertion that a 1000-foot firearm ban around a public park protects children, as well as other vulnerable persons, from firearm violence,” the justice wrote.

Spokespersons for Chicago Police, the Cook County State’s Attorney's Office and the Chicago Park District did not respond to requests for comment Thursday.


sschmadeke@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @SteveSchmadeke

quote:

“Without specific data or other meaningful evidence, we see no direct correlation between the information the State provides and its assertion that a 1000-foot firearm ban around a public park protects children, as well as other vulnerable persons, from firearm violence,” the justice wrote.

Yes!

Sounds like a step in the right direction, but why the hell can they not do the whole job?

The language in the constitution is crystal clear!!!!

What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do they fail to understand?

But then it IS Illinois!!

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
Sounds like a step in the right direction, but why the hell can they not do the whole job?

The language in the constitution is crystal clear!!!!

What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do they fail to understand?

But then it IS Illinois!!

quote:

Thursday’s ruling doesn’t address — and therefore lets stand — other parts of the state’s gun law, which prohibits firearms within 1,000 feet (about a city block) of schools, courthouses, public transportation facilities or public housing. The justices did not rule on guns carried near those locations on technical grounds.

quote:

“This is not a comprehensive ban on carrying a weapon,” Assistant Attorney General Garson Fischer said. Just stay away from parks, he argued.

It's possible that the issue of carry in other locations was not raised on appeal, and therefore the court does not have to address it in their holding. If the issues was "guns within 1000 feet of parks" that's all their going to rule on. There are issues that affect carry in those other locations that don't affect parks and without the facts being found at trial court level, and the issue being vetted at the appeals court level, they likely wouldn't feel comfortable making a blanket ruling.

Courts tend to rule very narrowly, limiting the application of their power to the specific issue before them, otherwise they'd be "legislating from the bench."

It can go both ways. Sometimes you want a broader ruling, but have to settle for baby steps. Sometimes the baby steps go in the wrong direction, and you're at least glad that you didn't lose the whole pot.

"which prohibits firearms within 1,000 feet (about a city block) of schools, "

And if one lives across the street form a school?

Oops. They lose again. What's that definition of insanity again?

quote:

Originally posted by M-11:
"which prohibits firearms within 1,000 feet (about a city block) of schools, "

And if one lives across the street form a school?

We used to have that law here, and if strictly enforced it would have made it virtually impossible to drive any reasonable route if you had a gun in the car. I believe it did have exceptions for residents who lived within the zone, but I'm not sure they covered transporting a gun to and from the home.

flashguy