Jump to content

SAF FILES FEDERAL CHALLENGE TO IL CARRY BAN FOR YOUNG ADULTS


Recommended Posts

SAF FILES FEDERAL CHALLENGE TO ILL. CARRY BAN FOR YOUNG ADULTS

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Illinois, challenging the state’s ban on concealed carry by young adults between the ages of 18 and 21, alleging the ban violates the Second and 14th Amendment rights of those citizens.

 

Joining SAF are the Illinois State Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., and three private citizens in the 18-21-year age group, David Meyer, Eva Davis and Mitchell Nalley. They are represented by attorneys David G. Sigale of David G. Sigale, P.C. in Wheaton, Ill., Christian D. Ambler of Stone & Johnson in Chicago and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom, all with Cooper & Kirk PLLC in Washington, D.C. The case is known as Meyer v. Raoul.

 

Named as defendants are Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly, State’s Attorney of Fayette County Joshua C. Morrison, State’s Attorney of St. Clair County James Gomric, State’s Attorney for Kendall County Eric Weis, Fayette County Sheriff Christopher Palmer, St. Clair County Sheriff Richard Watson and Kendall County Sheriff Dwight A. Baird, in their official and individual capacities.

 

“All law-abiding citizens of this country are considered adults at the age of 18 for nearly all purposes,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “They can vote, enter into contracts, start businesses, get married and join the military. But the state prohibits them from exercising the fundamental right to bear arms, that is, to carry a handgun outside the home or in an automobile, even though the state allows other adults to obtain a license to carry firearms in public.

 

“This is not our first legal encounter in Illinois,” he noted. “First we had the landmark McDonald v. City of Chicago Supreme Court victory that nullified Chicago’s handgun ban and incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment. That opened the doors for other cases around the country. We successfully litigated Ezell v. City of Chicago when the city tried to get creative with its handgun law. We won again with Moore v. Madigan, forcing the Illinois Legislature to adopt a concealed carry statute, which we’re very proud of. And we’ve had other successful legal battles, so Illinois is familiar ground to us.

 

The lawsuit notes, “Moreover, young adults between eighteen and twenty-one were fully protected by the Second Amendment at the time of its ratification. Hundreds of statutes from the colonial and founding eras required 18-to-20-year-olds to keep and bear arms.”

“We’re asking the court to remedy this situation by issuing an injunction against further enforcement of the ban on our individual plaintiffs and other young adults facing the same situation,” Gottlieb said. “Citizens in this age group enjoy nearly all of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution except when it comes to the Second Amendment. This cannot be allowed to stand.”

Donate to SAF today!

Meyer vs Raoul 1-Complaint.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That could get interesting as if they as adults have a right to carry, then can they continue to deny them the right to purchase a pistol as well as that is the only type of firearm allowed to be carried?

 

If they prevail it could open up a can of worms on the entire 18 vs 21 firearm type of ownership and/or the type of firearms that can be legally carried, could get quite interesting, especially if the Federal court denies the claim pushing it to a potential Supreme Court challenge that could send ripples nationwide.

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that Heller left open the possibility for some restrictions, sometime called time, place and manner restrictions, though I've never seen that verbiage used in a SCOTUS opinion. In my opinion, one of the most egregious infringements is the ban on public transportation while politicians simultaneously excuse public transportation from Common Carrier Liability. Other transportation companies, such as Greyhound bus, taxis and various shuttles have a duty to its passengers to use the highest degree of care consistent with the mode of conveyance used and the practical operation of its business as a common carrier as it relates to the safety of passengers. Failure to fulfill this duty constitutes negligence.

 

Obviously the CTA is very dangerous but people who are assaulted on the CTA have no legal recourse against the city, whereas they would have legal recourse against a private carrier. To be stripped of the right to defend oneself and stripped of the ability to seek legal recourse is a double injustice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...