snip~
CHICAGO — In a major victory for gun rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a ban on carrying concealed weapons in Illinois — the only remaining state where carrying concealed weapons is entirely illegal — and gave lawmakers 180 days to write a law that legalizes it.

In overturning a lower court decision, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the ban was unconstitutional and suggested a law legalizing concealed carry is long overdue in a state where gun advocates had vowed to challenge the ban on every front.

"There is no suggestion that some unique characteristic of criminal activity in Illinois justifies the state's taking a different approach from the other 49 states," Judge Richard Posner, who wrote the court's majority opinion. "If the Illinois approach were demonstrably superior, one would expect at least one or two other states to have emulated it."


By DON BABWIN and JOHN O'CONNOR, AP
49 minutes ago

more @
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20121211/US.Concealed.Carry.Illinois/

Hey Costas....

Billy

Looks like CHICAGO no longer controls Illinois.   

I have mixed feelings on this one.

While I feel that anything that enhances the rights of law abiding citizens to use firearms to defend themselves is a good thing, I am vehemently opposed to "Legislating from the Bench".

The Constitution only applies (or should only apply) to that which the Federal Government can and cannot do. It actually says as much in the 10th Amendment. If Chicago wants to ban concealed carry of fire arms, as long as such a ban doesn't run afoul of the Illinois State Constitution, it has every right to do so.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is not an absolute right.

Look at it this way.

The difference between a Federal judge forcing the removal of a monument inscribed with the the Ten Commandments is no different than a Federal judge voiding Chicago's concealed carry prohibition.

The only real difference is that (most of us) approve of the latter.

Every State that signed on, agreed to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and by extension, the Rights that entails.
Now it comes down to each county and how or whether it will issues said permits, the State has to step aside.

This is a common misconception and, since it was codified in the 14th Amendment has been the root of the trouble we are in to this very day.

When the states ratified the Constitution they were, in effect, agreeing to limits placed on the Federal Government. The Bill of Rights were never meant to extend to the individual states - they all had their own governments with their own constitutions and were quite happy with them. It was only meant to apply to the Federal Government.

Nope! Bye extension, states must uphold said rights.

Take all 10 original Amendments, can a State dictate to the church, can the state write laws leashing speech, etc?
Each and every state signed on to the Bill of Rights.

The Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You do know that (in apparent violation of the Bill of Rights) several states (including Maryland and Rhode Island) had official state religions, don't you?

Read carefully.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Those religions were "established" by the states as the official religions of those states.

Read it again, and try to comprehend what they mean.

You're missing the Congress, part of that, aren't you? 

Nope, I was pointing that out, that Congress is not allowed to interfere.
It said nothing about not allowing States to do as they please.
But with that said, the 14th arguably put the states in the position to adhere to the Bill of Rights as well, though it was implied by the states ratifying the B/R, that they would adhere to it's basic tenets.