Illinois Concealed Carry Law (well, prohibition) ruled unconstitutional - question

[Terr]

http://www.westernjournalism.com/illinois-must-honor-concealed-carry-law/

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has told Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan for the last time that she MUST honor the Constitution of the United States by doing away with her state’s ban on the concealed carry of firearms.

It was back in December of last year that a 3 judge panel of the Court found the Illinois law banning concealed carry to be unconstitutional. “The Supreme Court has decided that the [2nd] amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside,” wrote 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner, paraphrasing the opinion of S.C. Justice Samuel Alito. Naturally, the scrupulously liberal Madigan then petitioned the entire 10 member court, hoping that the ruling might be overturned. But the full court refused to reconsider the ruling of the panel.

================================

So a question for the lawyers here - since the current law is ruled to be unconstitutional, is it still considered in force? And if not, what law in Illinois currently covers prohibition on carrying weapons concealed?

[md2000]

IIRC - depending on circumstances, a law will be struck down (i.e. no longer in force) or the court may stay the judgement and give the government X months to appeal or redraft the law (i.e. “we can’t have open season, but this has gotta go soon”) If the news did not report a grace period odds are there isn’t one - in which case, you rever to the previous laws.

However, this suggests they were given a grace period:

And now the Illinois legislature has about 4 months to rewrite its unconstitutional ban into something acceptable to groups which strictly preserve the 2ndAmendment rights of the American people.

I’m kinda leaning toward the idea that the web site has an agenda rather than unbiased news reporting:

…struck down the city’s decades-old, unconstitutional handgun ban, brainless thug Mayor Richard Daley and city officials crafted a new ordinance to “comply” with the ruling. Naturally, this group of self-serving thieves and political prostitutes…

[pkbites]

What I read from the OP is: if a law is unconstitutional, why do we have to continue obeying it until law makers pass a constitutional law?

My answer is I dunno.

Are there any state/federal laws that say laws ruled unconstitutional are immediately, upon that ruling, null and void and unenforceable?

If not, why not? How is a person prosecuted for breaking a law that was rule unconstitutional before the violation of it? Is there any precedent of someone getting convicted of breaking a law that was ruled unconstitutional before they broke it?

How can a constitution, whether state or federal, be the supreme rule of the land if laws that are found to be unconstitutional are allowed to continue to have force of law?

[md2000]

IANAL, but my understanding is that the law may be judged unconstitutional in some parts; or the extreme reach of the law may make it too broad and so unconstitutional. Or there is no fallback, so simply removing the law would make for chaos. Or… the decision was closely split that rather than have an off-again-on-again situation, they allow time for an appeal that will clarify whether a higher court will back them up or keep the law active.

I suppose it’s a case of you pays your money and you play the game. If you are arrested for violating the law, the government may choose to not charge or put charges on hold,you since it’s possible the case will be moot when the law actually goes out of force, but you also run the risk of conviction if the law is upheld.

After all, it’s not like a concealed carry law is automatically unconstitutional - as I understand, most states have them. Just that a law that makes CC too difficult is in effect a law banning it, thus violating the second amendment. So the court is saying - “Try again, meanwhile we’ll avoid making the situation too lax the other way”.