lisa-madigan

SPRINGFIELD — Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan says the U.S. Supreme Court has now opened the way to a more restrictive concealed carry gun law in Illinois.

By Benjamin Yount

SPRINGFIELD — Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan says the U.S. Supreme Court has now opened the way to a more restrictive concealed carry gun law in Illinois.

Madigan today said the decision by the high court not to take up a challenge to a New York gun case opens the door for Illinois lawmakers to adopt a “may issue” rule like New York’s — which imposes sharp conditions on who may get a concealed carry permit, rather than the “shall issue” rules adopted in more permissive states.

It’s now less than 60 days before, under a lower court ruling, Illinois must allow some sort of concealed carry of weapons by residents.

“The legislature now can look up and say ‘A may issue permit is now constitutional’,” Madigan said of the high court’s decision not to review New York’s concealed carry law. “It should have an impact on discussions and the debate going on under the dome.”

Madigan speaking to reporters in Springfield about concealed carry.

“I don’t think it changes anything,” said Todd Vandermyde a lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association and point man for concealed carry legislation. “’May issue’ is not even part of the debate. It is either a right (to carry a gun) or it isn’t.”

Vandermyde said lawmakers are still split on how to legally allow concealed carry in Illinois. A federal court has given the state until June 9 to create a new law that allows some people to carry a gun outside their homes. Illinois is the last state with a blanket ban.

“We have more votes for a ‘shall issue’ law than they have for a ‘may issue’ (law),” Vandermyde repeated after hearing of Madigan’s comments

Concealed carry supporters, who want a “shall issue” law had 67 votes for their proposed legislation in March. It will take 70 votes to pass a concealed carry law that can overrule local gun restrictions, and that could survive a veto from Gov. Pat Quinn.

The governor on today said his position on guns is “well known,” and has not changed.

“The New York, I think, is a model for other states like ours,” Quinn said. “I think we need to have very tight restrictions on any type of concealed carry.”

Vandermyde counters that the nation’s highest court did not accept the case, but did not give a reason as to why.

“The Supreme Court could have had a number of reasons,” Vandermyde guessed as to why the justices did not want to review New York’s law.

Madigan, who’s office asked for a 7th Circuit Court review of Illinois’ weapon’s law, did not say if she would appeal to the Supreme Court.

Vandermyde wondered why.

“If she is so dead fast sure, why doesn’t she appeal this case straight up?” Vandermyde said. “We are not afraid of the Supreme Court.”

Reporter Benjamin Yount can be reached at Ben@IllinoisWatchdog.org 

Join the Conversation

10 Comments

  1. It is unfortunate

    It is unfortunate that the governor and attorney general rejoice in the restriction of law abiding citizens to protect themselves. 

    1. Newsflash

      Newsflash: if someone wants to shoot you, he isn't going to announce he is going to shoot you so you have time to take a gun out and defend yourself.

  2. Doesn’t matter

    The Supreme Court not taking up a case doesn't mean it assents to the lower court's decision – legally it means nothing at all.  So the lower case stands – may issue is constitutional in the New York region.  However, the decision says nothing about the 7th Circuit and Illinois.  Right now we are on the track for constitutional carry in June if the General Assembly doesn't act.  Gun rights advocates (many Democrats and Republicans alike in Illinois) will not assent to may-issue.  If the rest of the Democrats will not assent to shall issue, then constitutional issue it is and the gun rights advocates can surely live with that.

  3. Sick gun lovers

    These horrible people who want guns must be sick.

    There should be a way to round them up before they start hurting people. Why do you think that violence is the way to deal with problems in your lives. Please get help, you are sick. That gun does not make up for the fact you are sick in the head.   

    The police don't need egomaniacs who want to resort to violence running around like vigilantes. You won't help anyone or yourself, you wil only cause problems and get others hurt as you attempt to be a big shot with your new gun that makes you feel, at long last, like you are finally a big man.

    1. Guns

      I arrived at my home on Wednesday with my 6 year old son in my car to find my front door smashed in and $15K of things stolen.  After some investigation it has been confirmed that the burglary occurred between 2:30 and 3:30pm in the afternoon — in the 60 minute window prior to my arrival home (with my child).   What if I had arrived home 15 minutes earlier and the crew of 3-4 guys that burglarized my home (and it was a crew, not one or two guys) were still in the house as I walked in?  Where was my gun?  In my dresser drawer next to my bed… not on my person so I wouldn't have been able to do a damn thing to protect my child.  And oh… btw… it is gone now.  They took my portable gun safe (that keeps the gun locked away out of the reach of my kids) and now these criminals have my gun.  It I had a concealed carry permit my gun would still be safe and sound.

      When the officer arrived I told him I told him I had considered getting a CHL (concealed carry permit) in my home state (I left Illinois 2 years ago) and he told me I absolutely should get  one because the cops aren't going to be there to protect you.  Their job is to clean up the mess afterwards and try to catch the bad guys.  91% of law enforcement officer in the united states support responsible law-abiding citizens having concealed carry rights.  

      Our forefathers believed in guns and the right to bear arms.  The only thing that will ever stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun (or in my case a good woman with a gun).  

      Enjoy your naivete while it lasts.  I hope you are never a victim and find out why us "sick people" want our guns.

    2. I think you are living in a

      I think you are living in a fastasy world.  Guns are not bad and the people who own them leagally are not the ones comitting crimes.  The best example in the world is Boston Marathon.  What those two kids did is wrong no matter what your view is on guns.  They made bombs out of items you can buy at walmart.  They did not use assault rifles to kill people.  Just because I own a gun for sport does not make me sick.  As with regards to the police lets just look at the killing at the movie theatre.  Innocent people were shot by a person who was not legal to own a gun.  So what law is going to fix that?  If a person in the front row had a gun and was trained which is very important if you are going to carry the amount of deaths would of been much smaller.  I would being willing to guess that if you were sitting next to a person at the movies and this happens and they are trained and react and take out the threat instead of you or your family being a victum you would not refer to that person as sick.  You would say thank you.   Guns are not going to ever go away.  The technology is there and not all people follow the laws.  So you ban all guns, do you really believe that gang members etc. are going to say well we planned on going on out a shooting spree but can't do that because it is illegal.  We both know you do not have that thought process.  The best example out there of your rules the city of Chicago.  It is illegal to posses in your house a gun.  Yet it is the murder capita of the United States.

      1. I agree with you

        Hi JEFF:

        I agree with you that you don't have to be sick to own a gun and that there are perfectly legitimate reasons to own a gun such as for sport which you mention is true in your case.  However the thing that is very frustrating in this whole gun debate is that even very modest gun control measures which have wide spread support such as universal background checks can't get through congress.  This doesn't make any sense to me.

  4. Who you talking to?

    To: B Shapiro

    Are you talking to the gang bangers who illegally have guns or to the responsible citizens who would like to legally have the right to carry a gun? 

  5. We need an Attorney General

    We need an Attorney General who recognizes that all citizens have the right to protect themselves and their families. That right is not limited to politicians and the politically connected.

  6. Constitutional Carry is coming on June 9…

    …and there's nothing that the pointy head Liberals in Evanstion will be able to do about it!

Leave a comment
The goal of our comment policy is to make the comments section a vibrant yet civil space. Treat each other with respect — even the people you disagree with. Whenever possible, provide links to credible documentary evidence to back up your factual claims.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *