I've read through the complaint. As I understand it, the plaintiffs ask for:
- A declaration that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of responsible, law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm in public for self-defense
- A declaration that denying all manners of publicly carrying a firearm for self-defense to law-abiding citizens violates the Second Amendment.
- A declaration that precluding law-abiding citizens from openly carrying a firearm in public for self-defense is unconstitutional
- An order preventing enforcement of laws that prevent open carry of firearms in public for self-defense
They offer an alternative option, which is to eliminate the "good cause" provision that in its current form drastically restricts one's ability to obtain a license to carry concealed.
To me, it looks like the plaintiffs are asking the court to rule consistent with Heller, and parallel to Moore--that bearing arms is a protected right. The plaintiffs want open carry in public to be declared a constitutionally-protected right, but "shall issue" concealed carry is acceptable as an alternative.
The statement that "Today, the NRA filed an 'Open Carry' lawsuit which seeks concealed carry permits" appears misleading. Concealed carry is offered as an alternative, not the primary objective, and only to achieve the end result of legally bearing arms in public. (See http://illinoiscarry...0564, post #70)
Edited by kwc, 20 August 2016 - 08:50 AM.
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)
"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)