May 2022 - Parks & Recreation - 32

LAW REVIEW
Disconnected Crime Data
With
regard
oriented
to
evidence, "
" public-safetythe
court
found
general evidence of criminal
activity in Cook County and
Chicago was " related only loosely,
if at all, to the Forest Preserve
District. " In the opinion of the
court, such evidence of Chicago
crime data was " unhelpful because
only 5 [percent] of FPDCC land
is within Chicago city limits and
Defendants do not explain why
the dangers of urban gun violence
should
be
attributed
to
forest
preserves. "
Similarly, the court found
FPDCC's crime data from Cook
County was " geographically
disconnected from the places
regulated by Section 65(a)(14) and
Ordinance 3-3-6 with no explanation
for why they should apply to the
Forest Preserve. " Accordingly, the
court held FPDCC had failed to
establish " dangers for public safety
inside the Forest Preserve that could
be ameliorated by barring CCL
holders from carrying firearms in
the Forest Preserve. "
The federal district court
did
acknowledge: " the
government
has established a high number
of visitors to some, but not all,
FPDCC sites, and the presence
of children on some, but not all,
FPDCC sites. " The court, however,
found " the record contains little
information on the concentration
or spread of visitors across the
range of FPDCC properties
or
types of property (aside from the
Botanic Garden). " In the opinion
of the court, this
information
in the record was, therefore, " a
shaky foundation for a regulation
that applies to all of the Forest
Preserve District. " Moreover, the
32 Parks & Recreation | MAY 2 0 22 | PARK S ANDRECRE AT ION . OR G
court found FPDCC had " shown
little threat to public safety in the
FPDCC, and even less involving
concealed firearms, and none by
CCL holders " :
Nor has the government provided
evidence that the current low threat
of gun violence in the FPDCC is
a result of Section 65(a)(14) and
Ordinance 3-3-6. Both restrictions
regulate people whom and behavior
that the government has not
demonstrated pose such a danger
to public safety that a ban on
otherwise lawful concealed carry is
justified through the entirety of the
Forest Preserve District.
As a result, based on the
evidence in the record, the
federal district court held " the
firearms regulations at issue to
be unconstitutionally overbroad, "
because Section 65(a)(14) and
Ordinance 3-3-6 were " not
substantially related to the interest
that the government identified. "
The court, however, did not hold
that " the government necessarily
must justify such a restriction on
a site-by-site basis. " Instead, the
court indicated FPDCC " may be
able to do so for categories of sites
or activities, such as, hypothetically,
nature centers or athletic facilities. "
In so doing, the court rejected
FPDCC's argument that " it would
be impossible or unworkable for
them to identify places within the
Forest Preserve where children are
present, perhaps even in a way that
would qualify as a 'sensitive place'
under Heller " :
[N]othing in the caselaw suggests
that they would have to
write regulations that vary by
time of day or that apply only
when children are present; school
zone laws without such variance
have been upheld despite children
not being physically on school
grounds [24] hours per day, seven
days per week, [365] days per
year. In fact, the Illinois General
Assembly has already made these
kinds of distinctions.
Proposed Legislative
Response
Accordingly,
the
court held the
federal
district
challenged
" firearms regulations at issue to
be unconstitutionally overbroad. "
In finding " Section 65(a)(14) is
unconstitutional as written, " the
federal district court acknowledged
" the General Assembly is capable
of
identifying
and
writing
legislation " to determine " whether
or how to regulate concealed carry
of firearms in different places in the
FPDCC. " According to the court,
such judgments are " best left to
the legislature, and the legislature
ought to have an opportunity to
make those judgments. "
As a result, the federal district
court issued an order which
" temporarily stay enforcement
of its ruling for a period of six
months; i.e., until March 15, 2022,
to provide the General Assembly
an opportunity to act on this matter
if it chooses to do so. " Similarly,
Cook County would have to make
a
revised
FPDCC
Ordinance
3-3-6 consistent with the Second
Amendment reasoning of the court.
On January 21, 2022, proposed
legislation to amend the Illinois
Firearm Concealed Carry
Act
(Senate Bill 3745) was introduced
into the Illinois General Assembly
by
This
Senator Ram Villivalam.
Bill
provides an extensive
list of " sensitive places " within
recreational areas and facilities. In
May 2022 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of May 2022 - Parks & Recreation
