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
From Richard Palzer:
ReplyDelete“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.”