Useful links to several lawsuits in Illinois on carry: ISRA Legal Action Page , which includes links to the Moore v Madigan lawsuit and its initial complaint, briefs and court decisions.
The court decisions are notable. Excerpts below ...
The original opinion by the U.S. District Court of Illinois, Springfield, stated that:
This Court finds that the Illinois “Unlawful Use of Weapons” and “Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon” statutes do not violate Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit have recognized only a Second Amendment core individual right to bear arms inside the home. Further, even if this Court recognized a Second Amendment right to bear arms outside of the home and an interference with that right, the statutes nonetheless survive constitutional scrutiny.
>> The logic apparently being that since infringements have been recognized previously that makes them okay.
But the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals stated:
Both Heller and McDonald do say that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, id . at 3036 (emphasis added); 554 U.S. at 628, but that doesn’t mean it is not acute outside the home.
Heller repeatedly invokes a broader Second Amendment right than the right to have a gun in one's home, as when it says that the amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” 554 U.S. at 592. Confrontations are not limited to the home.
We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home. The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside.
>> Huh. A common-sense reading of the language, without burdening itself with historical pleadings either way. Recognizing that "bearing" arms cannot possibly mean just inside the home, that reality demands one's safety is impacted outside the home as inside via bearing arms and it's clear that the right to bear arms extends outside the home.
>> Caution, though. While we have destroyers and liberty-haters in many of the courts, this one-court verdict could easily evaporate elsewhere, where concise, simple, rational understanding of the language and commonplace meaning could disappear in a tangled, tortuous evaluation to convince themselves otherwise.