Saturday, October 25, 2014

Second Amendment Foundation, Illinois State Rifle Association, Illinois Carry... Sue Illinois Over Restrictive Conceal Carry Weapons Residency Requirements




BELLEVUE, Wash., Oct. 23, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Illinois, challenging that state's concealed carry statute that restricts otherwise qualified non-residents the rights and privileges of carrying concealed firearms based solely on their state of residence.

Joining SAF in this legal action are the Illinois State Rifle Association, Illinois Carry, Inc., and ten individual plaintiffs, all residing in other states and who are licensed to carry in those states. Under the restrictive Illinois statute, only residents from states with "substantially similar" requirements to obtain a carry license are allowed to apply for non-resident licenses. 

Only four states currently qualify under that provision. They are Hawaii, New Mexico, South Carolina and Virginia. None of the individual plaintiffs reside in those states.

According to SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, this situation is not simply unfair, it is untenable and we believe unconstitutional. 

"Our plaintiffs have qualified for carry permits or licenses in their own states," Gottlieb said, "which means they have gone through background checks and other requirements that show they are responsible, law-abiding citizens. Yet, because of the current Illinois statute, their self-defense rights are suspended immediately after they cross the Illinois state line."

Named as defendants in the lawsuit are Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Illinois State Police Director Hiram Grau and Jessica Trame, bureau chief of the State Police Firearms Service Bureau. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney David Sigale of Glen Ellyn, Ill.

"This lawsuit," said Sigale, "is brought because it is unfair that otherwise qualified people from states outside Illinois, who work and travel in Illinois are barred from obtaining means to defend themselves in public solely based on their state of residence. We expect to correct that."

"We're asking the federal court for a declaratory judgment on equal protection and due process constitutional grounds," Gottlieb stated. "It makes no sense at all for Illinois to enforce such a narrowly-defined law that seems to recognize the rights of some non-residents, while dismissing the rights of most other non-residents. We can't allow that kind of discriminatory situation to stand."

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.  

SOURCE: Second Amendment Foundation

1 comment:

  1. From Richard Palzer:

    “The reasons for the suit sound solid; however, as permits increase, putting more guns into more hands is risky despite carriers meeting requirements because people will use the weapon at hand, whether or not the circumstances call for such potentially fatal use--it's hard to trust good judgment in an emotional and volatile situation.

    “Also, more guns means more possibility of the guns winding up in the wrong hands--family members of the carriers, for example. I do appreciate the argument that would-be attackers may well have second thoughts, not knowing whether their targets might be armed, so there is a deterrent value.

    “As for the constitutional issue specifically, the suit essentially argues for a one-size-fits-all determination, which would bar individual states from establishing their own law and looking to the Federal government for interpretation. That scenario seems untenable. Yet, the Supreme Court, in its reversal of 2nd Amendment interpretation, has already done just that--ignoring as it did the ‘militia’ intention of the Founders by applying it to individuals, a decision with which I disagree. Another win for the NRA? Thanks, anyway.”

    ReplyDelete