thepointbeing Posted September 3, 2020 at 03:53 AM Share Posted September 3, 2020 at 03:53 AM Chicago Daily Law Bulletin 9/2/2020 ... An Illinois law barring high-risk people from obtaining licenses to carry concealed firearms complies with the Second Amendment, a federal judge held.In a written opinion last week, U.S. District Judge Joan H. Lefkow dismissed with prejudice a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Illinois’ Concealed Carry Act. The suit was filed by the Illinois State Rifle Association and Michael White, a man twice denied a concealed-carry license. The suit contends a provision of the act that prohibits the Illinois Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board from granting a license until it determines the applicant “does not pose a danger to himself, herself or others, or a threat to public safety” violates the right to bear arms and the right to due process.In a filing in the case, White and the rifle association maintained the provision’s dangerousness standard is unconstitutionally vague and gives the licensing board “unbridled discretion” in making its decisions. White and the association also contended the board’s standard of proof of preponderance of the evidence is too low and the board’s superficial written decisions denies applicants a “meaningful right to review” of those decisions. But Lefkow held the concealed-carry law meets the two-part test set out by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The test starts with “the threshold question of whether the restricted activity is protected by the Second Amendment,” Lefkow wrote, quoting Horsley v. Trame, 808 F.3d 1126 (7th Cir. 2015).It is clear, she wrote, that White and the rifle association’s claim “satisfies the first step: the Seventh Circuit has held that the Second Amendment protects a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.” The next step is examining “the regulatory means the government has chosen and the public-benefits end it seeks to achieve,” Lefkow wrote, quoting Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019). She noted the parties disagree on the standard that should be applied when determining if an applicant is dangerous. But the 7th Circuit resolved that question in Berron v. Illinois Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board, 825 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2016), Lefkow wrote, by upholding the dangerousness provision.With that ruling, she wrote, the appeals court “impliedly decided” that the standard of proof in the provision — preponderance of the evidence — “was appropriate under the Second Amendment.” She would apply that standard even in the absence of Berron, Lefkow wrote. “There can be no question that prohibiting truly dangerous people from carrying firearms in public is proper under the Second Amendment,” she wrote, citing cases that included Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012). “Plaintiffs propose no narrower language than the [concealed carry act’s] dangerousness standard that would enable Illinois to effectuate that goal.”White applied for a concealed carry license in May 2014, but the Chicago Police Department and Cook County Sheriff’s Office opposed the application.They based their objection on White’s three arrests from April 1995 to January 2012 and his inclusion on the police department’s controversial gang database as a purported member of the Latin Souls street gang. White denied he had ever belonged to a gang and noted that his only conviction was on a misdemeanor count of unlawful possession of a firearm. The Illinois State Police denied White’s application in October 2014 based on the licensing board’s determination that he posed a danger.White unsuccessfully challenged the decision in the Illinois courts. He again applied for a concealed carry license in August 2017 and the state police denied the application two months later. White and the rifle association filed their suit in April 2019. In her opinion Friday, Lefkow dismissed the state police and the licensing board as defendants. She also threw out some claims against members of those bodies who had been sued in their official capacities. The claims that remained were White’s as-applied claims related to his second application and the rifle association’s facial challenges to the concealed carry statute. Lefkow rejected the argument that the statute violates the due process clause.Citing Coniston Corp. v. Village of Hoffman Estates, 844 F.2d 461 (7th Cir. 1988), she acknowledged the licensing board “is prohibited from making decisions that are ‘arbitrary’ or ‘irrational.’” But judges “regularly consider arrests of all kinds — including old arrests and arrests for non-violent conduct — in assessing future dangerousness in criminal sentencing and related contexts” without violating due process, Lefkow wrote. And she wrote legitimate concerns about the gang database were not enough for her to rule differently. “With respect to the Chicago Police Department’s gang database, White presents compelling arguments that it is a deeply flawed tool, supported by a critical report from Chicago’s Inspector General, but stops short of arguing that it would be irrational for the oard to consider it,” Lefkow wrote. The case is Michael White, et al. v. Illinois State Police, et al., No. 19 C 2797. White is represented by Gregory A. Bedell of Knabe & Bedell and David G. Sigale of the Law Office of David G. Sigale P.C. in Wheaton. In a statement, Sigale said White’s attorneys are weighing their next move “as to this injustice.”“We strongly disagree with the ruling, and with the notion that long-ago occurrences, and innuendos in a faulty, discredited gang database, can permanently prohibit one from fully exercising the constitutional right to self-defense, especially in these times,” he said in a statement. “That Mr. White has never had the opportunity to look the decision-makers in the eye, and show he is not the person the State presumes him to be, is appalling and flies in the face of what the system should be about.” Illinois Assistant Attorney General Michael T. Dierkes represents the defendants in the suit. A spokesperson for the Illinois Attorney General’s Office could not be reached for comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted September 3, 2020 at 05:30 AM Share Posted September 3, 2020 at 05:30 AM For reference, the main topic was locked automatically for inactivity in May, but people can still go there for history. It's also sticky as of this writing. I guess it can be un-stickied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted October 2, 2020 at 03:07 PM Share Posted October 2, 2020 at 03:07 PM Old topic has been unstickied but can still be found at the link Euler posted. This new topic has been pinned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted August 24, 2021 at 10:35 PM Share Posted August 24, 2021 at 10:35 PM The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments for the case on 7 Sept 2021. The case number there is 20-2842. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasgrillchef Posted August 26, 2021 at 02:51 PM Share Posted August 26, 2021 at 02:51 PM It will be interesting to see how this comes out. One case similar to this was allready denied cert by SCOTUS. However I believe they are looking for a certain case that they easily rule in favor of. Which I believe will be all dependent on the crime, or other reason that invalidates ownership, possession, or obtaining a LTC. How SCOTUS rules on the current NY LTC case could possibly have some effect on this case as well. Possibly. We will see once the NY SCOTUS case is decided. Because this case (White v IL) won’t have any final decision, before SCOTUS decides on the NY case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted September 3, 2021 at 09:36 AM Share Posted September 3, 2021 at 09:36 AM On 8/24/2021 at 6:35 PM, Euler said: The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments for the case on 7 Sept 2021. The case number there is 20-2842. The argument calendar lists the scheduled time as 9:30am on 15 Sept. It's the first case to be heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted September 15, 2021 at 10:22 PM Share Posted September 15, 2021 at 10:22 PM Link to CA7 oral arguments (mp3) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted September 15, 2021 at 10:41 PM Share Posted September 15, 2021 at 10:41 PM Thank you for posting link to the arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiliconSorcerer Posted September 16, 2021 at 01:23 PM Share Posted September 16, 2021 at 01:23 PM If you short on time start at 32ish minutes this is when the question is asked and the state starts crumbling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted September 16, 2021 at 01:31 PM Share Posted September 16, 2021 at 01:31 PM The question of being placed on the Chicago gang database with no way to challenge or be removed . . . very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted September 16, 2021 at 09:57 PM Share Posted September 16, 2021 at 09:57 PM On 9/16/2021 at 8:31 AM, Molly B. said: The question of being placed on the no man's land of the Chicago gang database with no way to challenge or be removed . . . very interesting. Sounds like the federal no fly list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plinkermostly Posted September 17, 2021 at 12:42 PM Share Posted September 17, 2021 at 12:42 PM Like -- banned from METRA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted September 10, 2022 at 04:51 PM Share Posted September 10, 2022 at 04:51 PM A follow up in this lawsuit - Quote The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. ISRA lacks Article III standing. White’s facial challenges to the Act are precluded by the state court judgment. The Act does not violate the Second Amendment as applied to the denial of White’s second application. White has two criminal convictions—including one for unlawful use of a firearm—and multiple gun-related arrests. Illinois’s individualized determination that White’s criminal history renders him too dangerous to carry a concealed firearm in public survives intermediate scrutiny. I can't help but wonder if this ruling would turn out differently today in light of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Assoc. v Bruen? Since the ruling, Mr. White reapplied for a CCL, was again sent to the Review Board, but this time the Board approved him. So a happy ending for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted September 12, 2022 at 01:07 AM Share Posted September 12, 2022 at 01:07 AM On 9/10/2022 at 11:51 AM, Molly B. said: A follow up in this lawsuit - I can't help but wonder if this ruling would turn out differently today in light of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Assoc. v Bruen? Since the ruling, Mr. White reapplied for a CCL, was again sent to the Review Board, but this time the Board approved him. So a happy ending for him. They don’t want a court challenge since Bruen, if I have learned anything from reading things here the “intermediate scrutiny “ no longer works since Bruen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted September 12, 2022 at 02:20 AM Share Posted September 12, 2022 at 02:20 AM On 9/11/2022 at 8:07 PM, mab22 said: They don’t want a court challenge since Bruen, if I have learned anything from reading things here the “intermediate scrutiny “ no longer works since Bruen? Correct, intermediate scrutiny is no longer permitted. While I can't comment on this particular case, it wouldn't surprise me if we see more states and municipalities doing the same in order to avoid a court challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.