Carrying an Unloaded Handgun and Pepper Spray

[junglebob]

I've bought two of the Kimber Guardian Angel pepper spray units and I am carrying it in the front pocket of my Uncle Mikes fanny pack. Since I live in the "right denied" state of Illinois that has no concealed carry provision for its citizens, I am reduced to "fanny pack transport". This is carrying an unloaded handgun in a "fanny pack" (case) along with a loaded magazine. BTW carrying a concealed weapon in Illinois is a felony. Carrying the handgun as I describe is legal, (with an Illinois FOID card) even though all law enforcement is not up on it. I know this is a poor substitute for carrying a loaded handgun. My thinking is I don't live in a high crime area, if I got in a situation where I thought I needed to defend myself, I would open the fanny pack take out the Guardian Angel, hit the BG with 1 or 2 blasts of pepper spray (range 13 ft) and then draw and load my handgun, which I can do in about 6 seconds. If the spray didn't stop him and the sight of a handgun pointed at him didn't, several rounds probably would. Now I realize if the BG is pointing a handgun at me the senerios I mentioned wouldn't work very good.

[VegasGeorge]

That's really sad! How on earth did the citizens of Illinois allow this to happen anyway? The Illinois State Constitution is very clear:

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

That's about as clear as it gets. The "police power" is merely the authority of the State to provide for the health and safety of its citizens. In view of that constitutional provision, no court it its right mind would rule that the police power could extend to a complete ban on the individual's right to bear arms. And, bearing an unloaded gun is not "bearing arms."

So, why don't you concerned Illinoisans file a bunch of lawsuits and reclaim your rights?

[junglebob]

That's really sad! How on earth did the citizens of Illinois allow this to happen anyway? The Illinois State Constitution is very clear:

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

That's about as clear as it gets. The "police power" is merely the authority of the State to provide for the health and safety of its citizens. In view of that constitutional provision, no court it its right mind would rule that the police power could extend to a complete ban on the individual's right to bear arms. And, bearing an unloaded gun is not "bearing arms."

So, why don't you concerned Illinoisans file a bunch of lawsuits and reclaim your rights?
How did the citizens of Illiois allow this to happen? Well I guess the large number of Chicago area legislators has something to do with it. They do have a lot of control in the legislature. I haven't lived in Illinois all my life, lived in the other "right denied" state, Wisconsin, before moving here. Concealed carry could have been passed in Illinois around 1995 or so. The republicans controlled the house and senate and a bill went to "moderate" republican governor Jim Edgar who vetoed it. They couldn't get the votes to override it, and after the next election the republicans lost control. Democrat leaders Emil Jones and Mike Madigan are very anti-gun and carry bills normally die in committee. If we could get rid of Chicago, we'd have carry in the next legislative session.

I am sure are rights in Illinois were lost incrementally, death by a thousand cuts, the FOID card, in the 60's was probably a major change. It is illegal for an Illinoisan to own a firearm or buy ammunition without the FOID (Firearm Owners ID). Illinoisans are so conditioned to it that someone asked if they would be able to buy ammo when visiting Missouri. I said if you are are 21 yes. I've done it many times. If you look definately over 21, like me, just put the ammo down and your money and you'll have no problem.

The governor, who as a legislator, once proposed raising the FOID card fee from $1 to $100 a year and other liberal legislators are always assuring the hunters that they won't lose their guns. Then they introduce legislation to ban semi-automatic rifles, even pump shotguns. I think some hunters are catching on. Did the fact that the governor had once introduced a bill to raise the annual cost of being a gun owner 100 times lose him many votes among democrat gun owners? Maybe not. My son argued with democrat co-workers, he is a prison corrections officer, about voting for his republican opponent. One guys response, what good will it do me to hunt if I don't have a job. When Governor Blagojevich got in one of the first things he did was talk about closing some state prisons. He hasn't actively pushed any anti-gun legislation since he got in. I imagine he knows it would be political suicide outside the Chicago area.

A lawsuit sounds interesting if an attorney would take it for a percentage of the settlement. Maybe after the supreme court ruling, if all goes well.

I am involved with IllinoisCarry.com which has shown more political muscle than the largest gun organization in Illinois the Illinois Rifle Association. The Illinois Rifle Association used to have a lobby day in Springfield at the legislature and it brought a few hundred people, last year when Illinois Carry got involved it was 1200 to 1500 and this year 2000 to 2500. They are working with the Illinois Rifle Association which has finally come out in support of carry legislation. The county pro-second amendment resolution came about because of a conversation between a couple of Illinois Carry lobby day attendies in 2007. From a conversation in March 2007 to having over 3/4 of the counties adopting it in just over 1 year.

[junglebob]

P.S. to my last post. I don't want to make it sound like opposition to carry legislation is just from the democrats, there is liberal republican opposition as well. Down here in Southern Illinois (south of I64) there are democrat state reps that support and introduce carry legislation and other good gun legislation in the legislature. I wish there were more like them especially in North East Illinois!

[junglebob]

That's really sad! How on earth did the citizens of Illinois allow this to happen anyway? The Illinois State Constitution is very clear:

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

That's about as clear as it gets. The "police power" is merely the authority of the State to provide for the health and safety of its citizens. In view of that constitutional provision, no court it its right mind would rule that the police power could extend to a complete ban on the individual's right to bear arms. And, bearing an unloaded gun is not "bearing arms."

So, why don't you concerned Illinoisans file a bunch of lawsuits and reclaim your rights?

Who would you suggest that the lawsuits be filed against? Has this been tried in any other state with success?

[VegasGeorge]

It sounds to me as if you've read, reread, and read again the 21 simple words of Section 22. The more you read it, the madder it makes you. How could anyone misconstrue such clear language?

All of our rights set out in the Bill of Rights have been tested in court cases to determine the extent of permissible police power regulation. There are lots of cases. The bottom line is that regulations must be reasonable, and cannot defeat exercise of the Right expressed in the Constitution. The principles of constitutional law applied in federal cases apply to contests over State constitutional provisions. Simply put, neither the State nor any of its political subdivisions can vitiate the State constitution or any of its provisions by legislating prohibitions of constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Of course, the court would recognize the State's right to reasonably regulate the Right to "keep and bear arms." Section 22 makes that equally clear. But, a regulation which totally prevents ordinary citizens from carrying arms could not be construed as "reasonable."

Any citizen, or group of citizens, who have applied for a permit to carry, and been denied, or who have been arrested and charged with illegal carry, would have standing to file suit against the State and any political subdivision in which they live or were charged. The argument would be simple. "A law which unreasonably denies or restricts the Right guaranteed by Section 22 of the Illinois State Constitution is unconstitutional, void, and unenforceable."

[junglebob]

VagasGeorge, I'll have to bring this lawsuit idea up on the Illinoiscarry.com forum. Since the only option for excercising your right to bear arms is open carry in rural unincorporated areas, I guess there is a good argument that the state stops the excercising of your second amendment rights for a large portion of the Illinois population. At least Wisconsin, the other "right denied" state does have the open carry option. I know this is an argument used by anti-carry people in other states who say prohibitions or restrictive licensing against concealed carry don't violate the second amendment.

[VegasGeorge]

In my opinion, in States such as Illinois, with a clear and unequivocal right to bear arms expressed in the State Constitution, the fight should commence at the State level, not the Federal. One thing I really like about the Illinois provision is that there is no mention of "militia." That automatically removes one big stumbling block.

[junglebob]

VagasGeorge, I've brought up your suggestion of a lawsuit on the IllinoisCarry.com forum and your argument about what the state constitution says basically quoting you.

Here is a reply I got. "Unfortunately after Morton Grove passed its handgun ban the Illinois 7th District Court of Appeals determined in 1981 that it did not violate the U.S. constitution and the Illinois Supreme court found in 1984 that it did not violate the state constitution. Illinois Supreme Court broadly construed the "Subject only to police powers" to mean, essentially, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except when the state or local government says that it can be."

The topic is under the Illinois Concealed Carry topic section at Illinoiscarry.com/forum if you'd like to go over and lerk or join and comment.