Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/03/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin March 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 6 Applying the first step of its analysis, the court explained that the • United States Supreme Court had determined that there is an "individ- ual right to possess and carry weapons on the case of confrontation," based on the Second Amendment, but that such a right is "not unlimited." The court also explained that the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, (which has jurisdiction over Illinois) had found a blanket prohibition on carrying firearms in public in Illinois was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, but had also stated that state bans on guns "merely in particular places" might be constitu- tional if the weight of analysis showed a great public benefit on such a ban. The Supreme Court of Illinois, itself, had held that the Second Amendment "protects an individual's right to carry a ready -to -use gun outside the home, subject to certain regulations." To determine whether the offense of possessing a firearm within 1000 feet of a public park (as set forth under section 24-1(a)(4), (c)(1.5) of the UUW statute) "impermissibly encroache[d] on conduct at the core of the [S]econd [A]mendment," the court applied a "sliding" scrutiny scale. Under such scrutiny, explained the court, "the closer in proximity the restricted activity is to the core of the [S]econd [A]mend- ment right and the more people affected by the restriction, the more rigorous the means -end review." Applying that scrutiny here, the court found that the 1000-foot firearm restriction "directly implicate[d] the core right" to the "carriage of weapons in public for self-defense, thereby reaching the core of the [S]econd [A]mendment." The court found that the firearm restriction here not only "cover[edj a vast number of public areas across the state, it encompass[ed] areas . . . where an individual enjoys [S]econd [A]mendment protection, i.e., public ways." Moreover, the court found that the restriction at issue affected the "entire law-abiding population of Illinois." All of that, concluded the court, required an "elevated in- termediate scrutiny," under which the State bore the "burden of show- ing a very strong public -interest justification and a close fit between the government's means and its end, as well as proving that the `public's interests are strong enough to justify so substantial an encumbrance on individual Second Amendment rights.' " Here, the State claimed a compelling interest in public safety was served by reducing firearm possession within 1000 feet of a public park. Specifically, the State noted the large number of children who frequent public parks, and contended that a 1000-foot firearm restric- tion around public parks would extend the distance where a shooter might fire a weapon, thus protecting children and others. While the court acknowledged that preventing crime and protecting children were "important public concerns," the court found that the State failed to provide evidentiary support for its claims that prohibit- © 2018 Thomson Reuters 7