On February 22, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion, which refused Illinois' request for a rehearing of Shepard v. Madigan before the entire court. The previous decision in the case, by a three-judge panel of the court, struck down Illinois' complete ban on carrying firearms outside one's home or business for self-defense. Today's decision lets stand the strong interpretation of the Second Amendment offered in Judge Richard Posner's December 11 opinion, and brings Illinois one step closer to the rest of the country in respecting the Right to Carry.
"Today's decision is a major victory for the Second Amendment and all the law-abiding citizens of Illinois who wish both to keep arms, and to bear arms," said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "It is now clear that no state can deny law-abiding residents the right to carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home. We have been fighting this case for years and are prepared to keep fighting until the courts fully protect the entire Second Amendment."
Currently, Illinois legislators are working on a concealed carry law in hopes of bringing the state into line with the December ruling, which gave the state 180 days to enact a new law. If the state wants to pursue the matter further in the courts, it would have to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Objecting to the refusal to rehear the case were four judges, led by Judge David F. Hamilton. In an opinion devoted mostly to policy arguments, rather than to legal analysis, Judge Hamilton laments that "In so many public settings, carrying and using firearms present lethal risks to innocent bystanders," a point he tries to illustrate by describing the incident in August 2012 in which two New York City police officers accidentally shot nine passers-by while firing at a murderer near the Empire State Building. No mention is made of the many states that have enacted Right-to-Carry laws with no ill effect. The opinion goes on to urge Illinois to enact the strictest possible law governing who should be allowed to exercise the Right to Carry, restricting the places where people may do so, and suggesting that the state can restrict both the type of firearms that can be carried, and the way in which they can be carried.
This case is just one of many in which NRA-ILA is aggressively pressing courts around the country to recognize and protect the Right to Carry. For more information on our legal activities, please sign up for our online Legal Update newsletter by going to www.nraila.org/legalupdate.
Another Court Victory for the Right to Carry in Illinois
Friday, February 22, 2013
Monday, November 2, 2026
“Crime’s way down thanks to Trump — Dems will fight to send it back up,” warns an editorial in the N.Y. Post. “Law-and-order works. Immigration enforcement works. And — like it or not — Trump’s ...
Monday, November 2, 2026
A new Essay authored by NRA-ILA Litigation Director Joseph Greenlee and University of Wyoming College of Law Professor George Mocsary has been published in the Yale Law Journal Forum.
Monday, November 2, 2026
As votes are now being cast nationwide, one influential voting bloc is drawing renewed attention: America's hunters, sportsmen, and sportswomen.
Friday, October 30, 2026
Today, the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and an individual, Daniel Maines, filed a lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania’s carry restrictions for adults under 21.
Thursday, October 29, 2026
Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Steven D. Merryday denied the parties’ joint motion for entry of judgment in the National Rifle Association’s challenge to Florida’s firearm waiting period law. The case, Dunn v. Glass, remains pending ...
More Like This From Around The NRA

















