Judge Rosenstengel has not yet ruled on the plaintiff's motion to reconsider the case.
On June 8, the plaintiff submitted a "Motion to Cite Supplemental Authority." The plaintiff's attorney (Mr. Maag) introduced the New Hampshire Supreme Court's recent ruling on Scott Bach et al v. New Hampshire Department of Safety, and asked the Judge to review the logic applied in this case when reconsidering (if she chooses to do so) Samuel v. Trame.
Scott Bach and the ANJRPC filed suit against the NH Dept of Safety for refusing to issue nonresident carry permits to residents of New Jersey. At the heart of the argument is this: New Hampshire has a shall-issue scheme in place, and the statute allows nonresidents to apply for a permit. However, the administrative rules in NH go one step further and require nonresident applicants to possess licenses or permits from their home states. New Jersey is a may-issue (or more accurately, a "no-issue") state. Effectively, this disconnect means that residents and nonresidents are treated differently.
The case was not settled on Constitutional arguments. Instead, the court ruled that the administrative rules went "ultra vires" (beyond the powers) of the statute and essentially became de facto legislation. The court holds that the administrative rules are therefore invalid.
Mr. Maag leaves it to the imagination of Judge Rosenstengel to intepret the applicability of this ruling to Samuel v. Trame.
IMHO, the clearest parallel between Bach and Samuel would revolve around the definitions of "resident" and "nonresident" and demonstrating that the administrative code in Illinois is more restrictive than the statute. The statute (FCCA) defines a nonresident as someone who has not resided in Illinois for more than 30 days. The administrative code (Title 20, Section 1231) defines a resident as someone who qualifies for an Illinois driver's license due to his or her intent to establish a permanent domicile in this state. Military members who are stationed in Illinois reside here for much longer than 30 days, and could arguably be considered residents under the statute. The "clarification" in the administrative code removes this option. Essentially, the administrative rules are imposing legislation, contrary to their intent. That is precisely the logic behind the NH Supreme Court's decision.
Edited by kwc, 11 June 2016 - 04:16 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)