Jump to content

SAF Seeks SCOTUS Review of Important Illinois Carry Case


mauserme

Recommended Posts

https://www.saf.org/saf-seeks-scotus-review-of-important-illinois-carry-case/

 

 

 


SAF SEEKS SCOTUS REVIEW OF IMPORTANT ILLINOIS CARRY CASE

 

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to review a case challenging the State of Illinois’ ban on concealed carry by non-residents, asserting that without high court review, “virtually all Americans will be deprived of their full Second Amendment rights while in the State of Illinois, based on nothing more than their state of residence.”

 

Joining SAF in this legal action are the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA), Illinois Carry and nine private citizens. They are represented by attorney David Sigale of Glen Ellyn, Ill., a veteran of Second Amendment cases in Illinois and elsewhere.

 

“This is a case that literally begs for Supreme Court attention,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “When the Court ruled in the 2008 Heller case that the Second Amendment protected a fundamental right, it was clear that this right belongs to everyone, not just the residents of an individual state. The Seventh Circuit held in Moore v. Madigan that the carrying of firearms in public for self-defense is a fundamental right, but under existing Illinois restrictions, that right has been limited to Illinois residents and citizens from only four other states.

 

“All the plaintiffs in this case are asking for is to be treated equally to Illinois residents,” he added. “They’re not asking for special treatment. They will take the training required by state law and abide by all the other rules.”

 

ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson added, “It is unfair that people from out of state cannot get an Illinois concealed carry license. We intend to remedy that.”

 

This is not the first legal action SAF has taken against Illinois. Its case in Moore v. Madigan paved the way for creation of a licensing system that allows concealed carry. Before that, SAF and ISRA sued Chicago to nullify its decades-old handgun ban. SAF and its partners in this case have been busy fighting to expand Second Amendment rights in the state since the landmark 2010 ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

 

“We’re determined to make sure that all law-abiding citizens are not forced to leave their Second Amendment rights at the state border when they travel into or through Illinois,” Gottlieb stated. “This is yet another example of trying to win back firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A betting man would place his money on cert being denied in Culp. Concealed carry cases are faring no better this term than in any previous term. Myles posted a question which is indistinguishable from the case presented in Culp. Whether or not Culp attempts to distance itself from the third-rail of concealed carry in its cert petition remains to be seen.

 

Cert Denied this term (Orders List - October 1st conference):

 

Warren Myles, Petitioner v. Nebraska. Cert filed May 02 2019. Does the State of Nebraska have the option to respect some but not other states concealed carry permits.

 

Temarco Sartorio Pope, Jr., Petitioner v. United States – Cert filed Apr 08 2019. Response filed on July 10, 2019. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019. 4A/Concealed Carry

(1) Whether law enforcement can presume any concealed carry of a firearm is unlawful and conduct a Terry stop when the state statute does not criminalize the concealed carry of a firearm with a permit?

Airrington L. Sykes, Petitioner v. United States. Cert filed Apr 23 2019. Response filed July 10th. QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Whether law enforcement can presume any concealed carry of a firearm is unlawful and conduct a Terry stop when the state statute does not criminalize the concealed carry of a firearm with a permit?

Justice Scalia said that concealed carry is not a right. - https://youtu.be/hmrfyYBdA-E
Justice Kavanaugh said concealed carry is not a Second Amendment Right - https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4748320/concealed-carry-amendment
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those were criminal cases. The Myles cert petition was a joke.

Culp gets held pending NYSRPA is my bet.

Which of us has the better track record in predicting denials of cert petitions these past ten years? Be honest. I can't comment on the Culp cert petition until I have read it. It did not appear in my SCOTUS docket search until today. I will give it a read tomorrow. If Culp presents the same question or is otherwise defective in its compliance with SCOTUS Rule 10 then "PETITION denied."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those were criminal cases. The Myles cert petition was a joke.

Culp gets held pending NYSRPA is my bet.

I just read the cert petition. It turned out there wasn't much to read. There is no circuit split argued in the brief even though the Wrenn decision handed the petitioners one on a silver platter. And simply stating, "The issues raised by the decision below are important..." is not a SCOTUS Rule 10 compliant statement or argument in support of this petition.

 

Although the petition presumes that there is a right to carry concealed in public, it does not appear to be making that legal argument. Instead, it seems to be seeking solely a (procedural) "due process remedy," an application to apply for a concealed carry permit.

 

It had been some time since I last looked at this case. I had forgotten that 430 ILCS 66/40 states that non-residents do not need an Illinois permit inside of their vehicle and unless Illinois law has changed, they don't need a permit to carry a firearm in their home, place of lodging or on their property.

 

PETITION denied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... There is no circuit split argued in the brief even though the Wrenn decision handed the petitioners one on a silver platter. ...

In Wrenn v DC, the circuit court abolished may-issue in DC. Culp isn't about may-issue. Or are you arguing that "shall-issue" of non-resident licenses based on the applicant's state of residence ("demonstrated-residence?") is essentially may-issue ("demonstrated-need")?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Those were criminal cases. The Myles cert petition was a joke.

Culp gets held pending NYSRPA is my bet.

I just read the cert petition. It turned out there wasn't much to read. There is no circuit split argued in the brief even though the Wrenn decision handed the petitioners one on a silver platter. And simply stating, "The issues raised by the decision below are important..." is not a SCOTUS Rule 10 compliant statement or argument in support of this petition.

 

Although the petition presumes that there is a right to carry concealed in public, it does not appear to be making that legal argument. Instead, it seems to be seeking solely a (procedural) "due process remedy," an application to apply for a concealed carry permit.

 

It had been some time since I last looked at this case. I had forgotten that 430 ILCS 66/40 states that non-residents do not need an Illinois permit inside of their vehicle and unless Illinois law has changed, they don't need a permit to carry a firearm in their home, place of lodging or on their property.

 

PETITION denied.

 

When you say "PETITION denied" (sic), has that actually occurred or is it something you presume might happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...