Henrichs/GOA v Kelly & Raoul

[speedbump]

As stated, Reid & Rachel Henrichs (Valor Ridge owners/ instructors) filed in the Southern District of Illinois with GOA.  It challenges the exclusion of the majority of non Illinoisans from accessing a CCL in Hellannoy. 

[Euler]

I'll read the filing later, but in the meantime:

Culp v Raoul (2019)

Filed: US District Court for Central Illinois, 2014

Sponsor: IllinoisCarry, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation

Synopsis: The Illinois Concealed Carry Act prohibits residents of most other states from obtaining an Illinois concealed carry license.

Opinion: Undisputed empirical evidence shows that Illinois is without a reliable means of monitoring or otherwise learning of intervening, material adverse developments with the criminal history and mental health of nonresidents. The Second Amendment allows Illinois to account for this limitation in determining the terms on which to award concealed carry licenses to out-of-state residents. The court affirms the judgment for the state.

[Molly B.]

Glad to see this new filing now that we are post-Bruen. Eager to read the whole filing documents

[Euler]

docket

As I post, there's only the complaint on the docket.

[Euler]

Stamboulieh is the counsel for the Henrichs and GOA.

Complaint said:

...
However, in order for an Illinois nonresident to obtain a license to carry a concealed firearm in Illinois, 430 [ILCS] 66/40 states, in part, that "[t]he Illinois State Police shall by rule allow for non-resident license applications from any state or territory of the United States with laws related to firearm ownership, possession, and carrying, that are substantially similar to the requirements to obtain a license under this Act." ...

However, the laws of only six other states have been found to be "substantially similar" to Illinois' -- namely, Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, Nevada, Texas, and Virginia.

Section 66/40 and the Illinois State Police implementation thereof violate the Second Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans, and guarantees a right to bear arms in public for self-defense.

In direct contravention of those clear holdings, Defendants provide no avenue for "all Americans," who are not residents of Illinois or who do not live in the six "substantially similar" states, to keep or bear arms.
...
Other courts recently have struck down similar firearm regimes. Rejecting California's refusal to issue nonresident licenses, a district court in California held that a law that barred nonresidents from applying for a license to carry a concealed handgun violated the Constitution. A New York district court did the same. Finally, a Massachusetts state court held that a person should not become a felon while traveling through a state simply because that person did not obtain that state's license to carry a concealed handgun.
...
Plaintiff Rachel Henrichs is a natural person and a citizen of the United States and of the State of Tennessee. ...
...
Plaintiff Reid Henrichs is a natural person and a citizen of the United States and of the State of Tennessee. ...
...
Mr. and Mrs. Henrichs routinely visit their friends in Marion, Illinois.
...
GOA's Senior Vice President, Mr. Pratt, further identifies six GOA members who do not reside within Illinois and who do not reside in one of the six "substantially similar" states. For instance, Carl Higbie, a GOA member and resident of Connecticut, travels to Illinois and wishes to obtain an Illinois license to carry but cannot even apply for one. ... Richard Hughes, a GOA member and resident of Florida, also wishes to obtain an Illinois license to carry, but cannot apply. ... Sheryl Decasse, a GOA member and resident of New Jersey, likewise wishes to obtain a license to carry in Illinois, but cannot apply. ... Micah Young, a GOA member and resident of Michigan, also wishes to obtain a license to carry in Illinois but is prohibited from applying. ... And Andrew Roberts, a GOA member and resident of Hawaii, is prohibited from applying for an Illinois license to carry because he does not live in Illinois or in one of the other "substantially similar" states. ... Finally, Val Finnell, a GOA member who resides in Pennsylvania, occasionally travels to Illinois and also wishes to apply for an Illinois license to carry, but is prohibited from applying because he does not live in Illinois and Pennsylvania is not a "substantially similar" state.
...
COUNT I
U.S. CONST. AMENDS. II & XIV
RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
42 U.S.C. § 1983 AGAINST DEFENDANTS
...
By infringing the Second Amendment right to bear arms in public in these ways, Illinois' laws and regulations discussed in the foregoing allegations violate the Second Amendment, which applies to Defendants by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment, both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs, and are therefore invalid.
...
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
...
An order declaring that the challenged sections of 430 [ILCS] 66/40 , Ill. Admin. Code [T]it. 20, §§ 1231.10 and 1231.110, and any other regulation, law, or policy that precludes the issuance of licenses to carry concealed handguns to nonresidents of states that are not considered "substantially similar" to Illinois' are unenforceable, unconstitutional, and violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;

An order declaring that Illinois must permit nonresidents to apply for and be issued licenses to carry a concealed handgun in Illinois;

An order permanently enjoining all Defendants and all other officers, agents, servants, employees, and persons under the authority of the State, from refusing to accept applications from, and refusing to issue licenses to carry a concealed handgun to, otherwise eligible persons who are nonresidents of Illinois;
...

[Euler]

Not even mentioning Culp v Raoul could be a weakness. Also, it's already possible to travel through IL with concealed firearms in the passenger compartment, even though cops have recently made news a couple times by arresting nonresidents carrying legally so.

I'd expect the district court to say Culp v Raoul is binding precedent and dismiss the case. Whereupon it'll be appealed to CA7, which is (at best) going to have to reverse itself regarding Culp v Raoul.

We'll see.

[Euler]

On April 13, the defendants responded to the complaint.

On April 15, the judge presumed a bench trial, tentatively set it for sometime in August 2027, and set the following schedule:

05/27: scheduling hearing

2027
07/15: final pretrial conference

Edited May 31, 2026 at 07:45 AM by Euler

[Euler]

On May 27, based on the scheduling hearing, the judge set the following schedule:

2026
12/18: discovery due

2027
02/26: dispositive motions due
07/15: final pretrial conference (from April 15, 2026 order)