Meyer v Raoul - Carry ban under-21

[SiliconSorcerer]

I got all my kids FOID's by the time they were 3 and they are life members of the NRA (30ish years ago).

One escaped Illinois to Florida, next truck trip I need to bring her some of her guns.   

[JTHunter]

On 1/25/2024 at 7:24 PM, mab22 said:

Take him for some fun shooting at range. Don’t make big deal out of it, just some fun.

I think my nephew looks forward to me coming cause it “guns times” 😇

Before he went off to a private high school we went out in the woods and let him see what happens to a watermelon with a 12 gauge hollow point slug. 🤡🤣 good times! It would be nice to have a holiday tradition of skeet shooting, lil cold but “gun times”!

As an uncle you get to do the “fun” stuff! 😁

 

I wish I could but they live way north of me near Champaign. 🥴

[Octane]

On 3/25/2022 at 8:45 AM, Euler said:

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

 

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

 

Docket

To me this is such an interesting law that has been in place that just makes no sense. Im an adult in somethings and not in others. Its just a weird limbo period of 3 years

[Procfrk]

It makes you wonder if they're going to push to move things down or up to be more in line.

[Euler]

It seems unlikely to me that the government would prohibit the enlistment of 18-20-year-olds in the military and raise the voting age to 21 to "align" age criteria, especially when "progressives" keep pushing dropping the voting age to 16.

[SiliconSorcerer]

An adult is an adult, treating them different is just so CLEARLY unconstitutional (even to my late dog) it's amazing this just takes so long. 

 

Considering the last couple shootings we should ban ....sexuals from getting firearms, lets see how that flies. 

 

[mab22]

It never really works out for the left when you apply the "Money Ball question", "if he's a good hitter, why doesn't he hit good?"

On 2/18/2024 at 11:15 AM, Euler said:

It seems unlikely to me that the government would prohibit the enlistment of 18-20-year-olds in the military and raise the voting age to 21 to "align" age criteria, especially when "progressives" keep pushing dropping the voting age to 16.

 

If 18 years can't carry firearms or buy alcohol, because they are not responsible enough, or not mentally developed enough, how can they be allowed to vote, let alone drop the voting age if the aforementioned is true?

To which they will scream RACIST!!!, even though it has nothing to do with race, because you just exposed their level of critical thinking.

 

[Euler]

Eva Davis, the previously sole remaining plaintiff under 21, turns 21 next week.

On March 22, FPC, SAF, and ISRA asked the court to add Jacob Fournie as a plaintiff. He's currently 19.

[Euler]

On June 28, Raoul filed the Rahimi decision as an authority in support of the defendants in this case.

[splitaxe]

How would Rahimi help the state in this case? Is it just a delay tactic, or is there something in the decision that would benefit them?

[Euler]

The state hasn't filed any brief to incorporate Rahimi into the argument yet, but I kind of suspect it's going to go for the "Rahimi says we don't need an exact historical example" angle, maximizing whatever squishy language in Rahimi that it can.

[Euler]

Slightly off-topic, but I've had reason to look through some of the "older" cases in Illinois. Hey, would you be amused that the 7th Circuit once opined that people under 18 had Second Amendment rights? Yeah, from Ezell v Chicago (2017), i.e., 7 years ago, dealing with a Chicago ordinance that barred people under 18 from even entering a firing range:

Opinion said:

...
The age restriction also flunks heightened scrutiny. We held in Ezell I [2011] that the Second Amendment protects the right to learn and practice firearm use in the controlled setting of a shooting range. The City insists that no person under age 18 enjoys this right. That's an extraordinarily broad claim, and the City failed to back it up. Nor did the City adequately justify barring anyone under 18 from entering a range. To the contrary, its own witness on this subject agreed that the age restriction is overbroad because teenagers can safely be taught to shoot and youth firearm instruction is both prudent and can be conducted in a safe manner.
...

Edited August 5, 2024 at 03:40 AM by Euler

[Molly B.]

IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUESTED:

 

 

A lawsuit is currently pending in the federal Southern District of Illinois regarding the Second Amendment rights of 18-20 year olds, who are prohibited under Illinois law from carrying a firearm in public for self-defense. The name of the case is Meyer v. Raoul. The attorneys for the Plaintiffs are seeking additional plaintiffs who are ages 18-20 and who have FOID cards to join the lawsuit. The attorneys are looking to add plaintiffs as soon as possible.

 

If you are or know an 18-20 year old with a FOID card who would carry a firearm for self-defense, but only do not because Illinois has made it illegal to do so, please contact attorney David G. Sigale at dsigale@sigalelaw.com.  Please provide the person’s name, address, e-mail address, phone number, and date of birth.

 

Thank you for your assistance.

[Euler]

There's been an attempt to add a new plaintiff pending for more than a year.

On March 22, 2024 at 11:13 PM CDT, Euler said:→

Eva Davis, the previously sole remaining plaintiff under 21, turns 21 next week.

On March 22, FPC, SAF, and ISRA asked the court to add Jacob Fournie as a plaintiff. He's currently 19.

I don't know if there's some problem with Fournie. (Of course, he's 20 by now.) I guess more would be better, even if Fournie is enough.

[steveTA84]

Time to get this one moving again in light of today’s news! 
 

 

[springfield shooter]

On 4/21/2025 at 9:03 AM, steveTA84 said:

Time to get this one moving again in light of today’s news! 
 

 

 

Soooo....there wasn't four votes to grant cert. Interesting.

[EdDinIL]

On 4/21/2025 at 11:45 AM, springfield shooter said:

Soooo....there wasn't four votes to grant cert. Interesting.

I wouldn't read much into that.  There isn't a circuit split on this particular issue, right?   The Illinois case would be the impetus for that if it goes in favor of the state.  Until then, SCOTUS is going to stay silent.

 

Edit:  Worth v Jacobson was conferenced exactly once before being denied cert.

 

Edit #2:  Hang on, there IS a circuit split and SCOTUS still denied cert?  (See Worth's response)

 

Edited April 21, 2025 at 06:54 PM by EdDinIL

[Euler]

On June 5, plaintiffs filed to add a new 19-year-old plaintiff. The only existing plaintiff under 21 turns 21 later this month.

[EdDinIL]

On 6/6/2025 at 8:20 PM, Euler said:

On June 5, plaintiffs filed to add a new 19-year-old plaintiff. The only existing plaintiff under 21 turns 21 later this month.

Can the court wait until the only existing plaintiff turns 21 and moot the case before accepting the 19-year old as a plaintiff?

[ragsbo]

On 6/9/2025 at 2:40 PM, EdDinIL said:

Can the court wait until the only existing plaintiff turns 21 and moot the case before accepting the 19-year old as a plaintiff?

As long as the courts drag their feet, the plaintiffs will be eligible for social security before they take any actions. 

[Tango7]

On 6/9/2025 at 2:40 PM, EdDinIL said:

Can the court wait until the only existing plaintiff turns 21 and moot the case before accepting the 19-year old as a plaintiff?

Oh, you mean like they did for the military members who were under 21 but couldn't apply for an FOID without their mommy or daddy's approval?

[EdDinIL]

On 6/9/2025 at 3:30 PM, ragsbo said:

As long as the courts drag their feet

Well, yes, the courts can always do that.  I was looking at the specific circumstance here, though.  If the court drags its feet and does nothing until July, can it ignore the filing for the addition of the new plaintiff, moot the case, and thus trash the new plaintiff filing?  Or could court reject the new plaintiff filing at the last second, leaving the court free to moot the case without time to seek another plaintiff?

[Euler]

In similar cases in the past, courts have just refused new plaintiffs and mooted the cases when plaintiffs aged out.

In cases where a court has ruled before the plaintiffs aged out, the plaintiffs appealed, but then the appeals court mooted the case, because by the time the appeals court issued a decision, the plaintiffs had aged out. Getting a civil suit certified as a class action is very hard, but it still needs a class representative, too.

As an example of how age can work against us at the other end, in George Young's carry case against Hawaii (originally filed in 2012), the 9th Circuit just kept delaying to wait for Young to die. After Bruen, Hawaii stated issuing carry licenses in 2022. George Young died in 2024. He was 90.

The judge in this case has allowed the addition of new plaintiffs under 21 in the past. The problem is still going to be CA7 and maybe the Supreme Court.

[TomKoz]

On 6/10/2025 at 7:04 PM, Euler said:

In similar cases in the past, courts have just refused new plaintiffs and mooted the cases when plaintiffs aged out.

In cases where a court has ruled before the plaintiffs aged out, the plaintiffs appealed, but then the appeals court mooted the case, because by the time the appeals court issued a decision, the plaintiffs had aged out. Getting a civil suit certified as a class action is very hard, but it still needs a class representative, too.

As an example of how age can work against us at the other end, in George Young's carry case against Hawaii (originally filed in 2012), the 9th Circuit just kept delaying to wait for Young to die. After Bruen, Hawaii stated issuing carry licenses in 2022. George Young died in 2024. He was 90.

The judge in this case has allowed the addition of new plaintiffs under 21 in the past. The problem is still going to be CA7 and maybe the Supreme Court.

That ain’t Justice !

[Euler]

On September 5, plaintiffs supplemented the record with a new plaintiff under 21. The existing plaintiff under 21, Jacob Fournie, will turn 21 later this month. The new plaintiff under 21 is to be Austin Krebs, currently 19.