Rep. Kelly Burke
|09800HB1155ham003||LRB098 08475 MRW 41601 a|
AMENDMENT TO HOUSE BILL 1155
AMENDMENT NO. ______. Amend House Bill 1155, AS AMENDED, by
inserting the following in its proper numeric sequence:
Firearm carry prohibition; child care
(a) No person may knowingly carry a firearm into any
portion of a building used as a child care facility, or any
adjacent property or parking lot area under control of or owned
by a child care facility.
(b) Nothing in this Section shall prevent the owner or
operator of a child care facility in a family home from owning
or possessing a firearm or license, so long as the firearm is
stored unloaded in a locked container.
(c) The exemptions and provisions in subsections (a), (b),
(f), (g-6), (g-10), (h), and (i) of Section 24-2 of the
Criminal Code of 2012 apply to this Section.
(d) The United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia
|09800HB1155ham003||- 2 -||LRB098 08475 MRW 41601 a|
v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) has recognized
that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
does not confer an unlimited right and that states may prohibit
the carrying of firearms in sensitive places. The Supreme Court
stated in the Heller decision: "Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to
cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of
firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the
carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and
government buildings . . ." The Supreme Court also noted in a
footnote referencing this statement in the Heller decision
that: "We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory
measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be
This recognition was reiterated by the U. S.
Supreme Court in McDonald v. the City of Chicago, 561 U.S.
3025, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010), which incorporated the Second
Amendment against state action. The Supreme Court again stated:
"We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt
on such longstanding regulatory measures as "prohibitions on
the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,"
"laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings . . . We repeat those
assurances here." Further, the federal 7th Circuit Court of
Appeals in Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d. 933 (7th Cir., 2012)
cited the "sensitive place" statement of the Supreme Court in
|09800HB1155ham003||- 3 -||LRB098 08475 MRW 41601 a|
both the Heller and McDonald decisions and concluded: "That a
legislature can forbid the carrying of firearms in schools and
government buildings means that any right to possess a gun for
self-defense outside the home is not absolute, and it is not
absolute by the Supreme Court's own terms." Therefore, the
General Assembly finds that the place or location set forth in
subsection (a) of this Section is a sensitive place and the
prohibition on the carrying of firearms will promote public
safety in this sensitive place.".