Jump to content

Meyer v Raoul - Carry ban under-21


Euler

Recommended Posts

Filed in Southern Illinois Federal District Court on 27 May 2021.

 

Individual plaintiffs are joined by the SAF, ISRA, and FPC.

 

Docket

Complaint said:

...

The State of Illinois prohibits a certain class of law-abiding, responsible citizens -- namely, adults who have reached the age of eighteen but are not yet twenty-one -- from fully exercising the right to keep and bear arms. At eighteen years of age, law-abiding citizens in this country are considered adults for almost all purposes and certainly for the purposes of the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights. Yet the State bans such persons from carrying a handgun outside the home or automobile, even though the State allows all other law-abiding adults to obtain a license to carry firearms in public.

...

COUNT I: ILLINOIS' 18-TO-20-YEAR-OLD CARRY BAN IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FACIALLY AND AS APPLIED PURSUANT TO THE SECOND AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS

...

Defendants have violated Plaintiffs' right to keep and bear arms by precluding them from being able to carry a handgun on the public streets and public property -- even for purposes of self-defense -- because Defendants enforce 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/24-1.6(a)(3)(I)'s ban against Plaintiffs and because Defendants refuse to issue licenses to carry a handgun to Plaintiffs.

...

Even if the 18-to-20-Year-Old Carry Ban were subject to means-end scrutiny, prohibiting 18-to-20-year-old adults from carrying handguns does not substantially advance a government interest in public safety.

...

COUNT II: ILLINOIS' 18-TO-20-YEAR-OLD CARRY BAN IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO 18-TO-20-YEAR-OLD WOMEN UNDER THE SECOND AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS

...

The State has not provided and cannot provide any legitimate justification for denying law-abiding, 18-to-20-year-old women the right to lawfully exercise their fundamental right to carry handguns in public for self-defense and other lawful purposes.

...

Without any legitimate justification, much less one of a "compelling" or "substantial" nature as required to survive heightened scrutiny, to the extent a scrutiny analysis applies, Illinois' 18-to-20-Year-Old Carry Ban is unconstitutional, void, and invalid as applied to women between the ages of 18 and 21. Defendants' active enforcement of it constitutes an actionable violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 redressable through the relief Plaintiffs seek in this Complaint.

...

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants, as follows:

 

Declare that the 18-to-20-Year-Old Carry Ban consisting of 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/24-1.6(a)(3)(I), 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/24-1(a)(4)(iv), 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/24-1(a)(10)(iv), 430 Ill. Comp. Stat. 66/25(1), and all related laws, regulations, policies, and procedures, violates -- facially, as applied to otherwise qualified 18-20-year-olds, or as applied to otherwise qualified 18-20-year-old women -- the right of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' similarly situated members to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;

 

Enjoin Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them from enforcing, against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' similarly situated members, the 18-to-20-Year-Old Carry Ban consisting of 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/24-1.6(a)(3)(I), 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/24-1(a)(4)(iv), 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/24-1(a)(10)(iv), 430 Ill. Comp. Stat. 66/25(1), and all related laws, regulations, policies, and procedures that would impede or criminalize Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' similarly situated members' exercise of their right to keep and bear arms;

 

Award Plaintiffs nominal damages for constitutional injuries caused by Defendants' enforcement of the 18-to-20-Year-Old Carry Ban and resulting deprivation of Plaintiffs' Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights;

 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, award costs and attorney fees and expenses to the extent permitted; and

 

Grant any and all other equitable and/or legal remedies this Court may see fit.

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/7/2022 at 9:15 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

Every 21 vs 18 should be eliminated, either your an adult or your not, that regardless if I really like it included drinking. 

If you can vote and see results in Illinois by God you need to be able to drink.

 

I have to say, I agree with you. Either you are an adult or you are not. I fully realize that people mature at different rates/ages and there are some 'adults' that should be considered minors. 

 

What is the right age? 18? 21? 31? I don't know, but you can't be a partial adult. If you have the right to vote and be charged in criminal crimes and civil affairs as an adult, then you are an adult. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/7/2022 at 9:19 AM, bmyers said:

 

I have to say, I agree with you. Either you are an adult or you are not. I fully realize that people mature at different rates/ages and there are some 'adults' that should be considered minors. 

 

What is the right age? 18? 21? 31? I don't know, but you can't be a partial adult. If you have the right to vote and be charged in criminal crimes and civil affairs as an adult, then you are an adult. 

Not to go off too much into this guy belongs in the looney bin but there's something to say about the old law of only letting landowners vote. 

Today I would change that to to have at least paid taxes and not be on someone else's for at least 5 years, so they don't ask who FICA is. 

One would hope when they start taking your income you would pay a little bit more attention to where it goes and why, but unfortunately history doesn't appear to support this either. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/7/2022 at 11:13 PM, mab22 said:

I’m going with age discrimination.

If you can be drafted into the military at 18, and have access to fully automatic weapons, rockets, bombs, etc. you should be able to attend a carry class, and get a license. You can possess a firearm at that age, correct? 

 

GCA of 1968 prohibits the sale of handguns to people under 21 by FFLs. However, a person 18-20 is not prohibited by Federal law from owning a handgun obtained by some other means, nor is there a Federal law that prohibits carrying any firearm by anyone of any age. Meanwhile, Illinois also does not prohibit a person 18-20 from owning a handgun obtained by some other means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2022 at 1:05 AM, Euler said:

GCA of 1968 prohibits the sale of handguns to people under 21 by FFLs. However, a person 18-20 is not prohibited by Federal law from owning a handgun obtained by some other means, nor is there a Federal law that prohibits carrying any firearm by anyone of any age. Meanwhile, Illinois also does not prohibit a person 18-20 from owning a handgun obtained by some other means.

 

Clarifying afterthought, though it should be (mostly) obvious: Illinois does not prohibit a person 18-20 from owning a handgun obtained by some other means, as long as the person under 21 has not previously been adjudged a juvenile delinquent or convicted of any crime other than a misdemeanor traffic violation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2022 at 12:05 AM, Euler said:

GCA of 1968 prohibits the sale of handguns to people under 21 by FFLs. However, a person 18-20 is not prohibited by Federal law from owning a handgun obtained by some other means, nor is there a Federal law that prohibits carrying any firearm by anyone of any age. Meanwhile, Illinois also does not prohibit a person 18-20 from owning a handgun obtained by some other means.

 

Euler - that being said, are 18-20 y.o. able to take the CC classes and CC or are they prohibited from that because of their age?

What if they are either an "emancipated minor" or already married, having done so shortly after H.S. graduation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2022 at 10:26 PM, JTHunter said:

Euler - that being said, are 18-20 y.o. able to take the CC classes and CC or are they prohibited from that because of their age?

What if they are either an "emancipated minor" or already married, having done so shortly after H.S. graduation?

 

Assuming they're not otherwise prohibited from owning a handgun, concealed carry by people under 21 is controlled by state law, so it varies from state to state. In Illinois, people under 21 are prohibited from carrying concealed in public, without exception (hence this case). Carrying in private with the permission of the owner or tenant (which may be themselves) is not prohibited.

 

It's also not prohibited for them to take CC classes (even the range qualification), which I suppose they could do in preparation for applying for a CCL on their 21st birthday.

 

If the plaintiff in this case is successful, it will bump the under-21 carry ban down to an under-18 carry ban in Illinois.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

The court published the amended schedule for the remainder of the case today.

 

Discovery due by October 13, 2022

Dispositive Motions due by November 14, 2022

The final pretrial conference is reset for March 1, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. in Benton Courthouse

Jury trial is reset for March 13, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Benton Courthouse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

On September 6, all parties tried to sever plaintiff Mitchell Nalley from the case by stipulation, since he has passed his 21st birthday, and defendants James Gromic and Richard Watson, since they are the officials being sued in St. Clair County, where Nalley resides.

 

The judge denied the stipulation on procedural grounds. Stipulation allows for the dismissal of actions, not parties or claims. Plaintiffs need to file an amended complaint, which they haven't done yet.

 

There are still two plaintiffs under 21 remaining. Of course, if the case lasts long enough, that'll change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2022 at 8:15 PM, BobPistol said:

...
Can the attorneys for plaintiffs keep looking for people under 21 to keep the case alive?

 

Yes, but the defendants can also file motions to disallow additional plaintiffs when they try to add any. Also the judge can simply refuse to allow it without a motion. It can go either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2022 at 5:49 PM, Euler said:

 

Yes, but the defendants can also file motions to disallow additional plaintiffs when they try to add any. Also the judge can simply refuse to allow it without a motion. It can go either way.

 

So then how to keep the case alive if they're just going to moot the case when they all turn 21?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2022 at 12:06 AM, mab22 said:

Ok, so how about new born parents file a case wanting their new born to be eligible to carry before their 21st birthday?

 

A civil case needs to be able to demonstrate harm. Anyone under 18 hasn't been harmed by state law, since federal law prohibits firearm purchases for them. The case would be dismissed.

 

I think the way to do it is either to try to get such a case certified as a class action, so saying everyone 18-20 is harmed, or to bring the case as a facial challenge, again saying everyone 18-20 is harmed.

 

A class action would be a tough sell. There would need to be an endless stream of single-plaintiff cases, each of which could unfortunately be mooted after 3 years. Also courts strongly prefer as-applied challenges to facial challenges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 8/8/2022 at 9:55 PM, Euler said:

The court published the amended schedule for the remainder of the case today.

 

Discovery due by October 13, 2022

Dispositive Motions due by November 14, 2022

The final pretrial conference is reset for March 1, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. in Benton Courthouse

Jury trial is reset for March 13, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Benton Courthouse

 

On October 12, the defendants filed a motion to extend the deadlines (again), which the court granted.

 

Discovery due by November 28, 2022

Dispositive Motions due by January 6, 2023

The final pretrial conference is reset for April 19, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. in Benton Courthouse

Jury trial is reset for May 1, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. in Benton Courthouse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2022 at 7:13 PM, Euler said:

On September 6, all parties tried to sever plaintiff Mitchell Nalley from the case by stipulation, since he has passed his 21st birthday, and defendants James Gromic and Richard Watson, since they are the officials being sued in St. Clair County, where Nalley resides.

 

The judge denied the stipulation on procedural grounds. Stipulation allows for the dismissal of actions, not parties or claims. Plaintiffs need to file an amended complaint, which they haven't done yet.

...

 

The plaintiffs today asked for permission to amend the complaint to remove Mitchell Nalley as a plaintiff and James Gromic and Richard Watson as defendants. The judge granted the motion. The judge also made it clear that she's not going to grant any more extensions to the remaining defendants.

 

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 9/28/2022 at 3:46 AM, Euler said:

 

A civil case needs to be able to demonstrate harm. Anyone under 18 hasn't been harmed by state law, since federal law prohibits firearm purchases for them. The case would be dismissed.

 

I think the way to do it is either to try to get such a case certified as a class action, so saying everyone 18-20 is harmed, or to bring the case as a facial challenge, again saying everyone 18-20 is harmed.

 

A class action would be a tough sell. There would need to be an endless stream of single-plaintiff cases, each of which could unfortunately be mooted after 3 years. Also courts strongly prefer as-applied challenges to facial challenges.

 

IIRC, federal law only prevents them from buying a handgun themselves.  If they got married after high school graduation, somebody might have given them (one they already had to avoid a possible straw purchase) a gun as a wedding present.  I believe that would be legal, wouldn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2023 at 12:52 AM, JTHunter said:

IIRC, federal law only prevents them from buying a handgun themselves.  If they got married after high school graduation, somebody might have given them (one they already had to avoid a possible straw purchase) a gun as a wedding present.  I believe that would be legal, wouldn't it?

 

Federal law doesn't care if there's an exchange of money. It is illegal for anyone, FFL or not, to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a handgun to anyone under 18. It is illegal for an FFL to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a long gun to anyone under 18. There is no federal restriction for private transfers of long guns to anyone under 18.

 

This case is about carrying handguns by people 18  to 20.

 

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Molly B. pinned this topic

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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