SAF Moves for SCOTUS Review of Illinois Prohibition on Non-Resident Concealed Carry Licenses

Honest Abe's Illinois Concealed Carry License (courtesy aoarms.com)

Courtesy aoarms.com

By the Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation has petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to review a case challenging the State of Illinois’ ban on concealed carry by non-residents, asserting that without high court review, “virtually all Americans will be deprived of their full Second Amendment rights while in the State of Illinois, based on nothing more than their state of residence.”

Joining SAF in this legal action are the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA), Illinois Carry and nine private citizens. They are represented by attorney David Sigale of Glen Ellyn, Ill., a veteran of Second Amendment cases in Illinois and elsewhere.

“This is a case that literally begs for Supreme Court attention,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “When the Court ruled in the 2008 Heller case that the Second Amendment protected a fundamental right, it was clear that this right belongs to everyone, not just the residents of an individual state. The Seventh Circuit held in Moore v. Madigan that the carrying of firearms in public for self-defense is a fundamental right, but under existing Illinois restrictions, that right has been limited to Illinois residents and citizens from only four other states.

“All the plaintiffs in this case are asking for is to be treated equally to Illinois residents,” he added. “They’re not asking for special treatment. They will take the training required by state law and abide by all the other rules.”

ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson added, “It is unfair that people from out of state cannot get an Illinois concealed carry license. We intend to remedy that.”

This is not the first legal action SAF has taken against Illinois. Its case in Moore v. Madigan paved the way for creation of a licensing system that allows concealed carry. Before that, SAF and ISRA sued Chicago to nullify its decades-old handgun ban. SAF and its partners in this case have been busy fighting to expand Second Amendment rights in the state since the landmark 2010 ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

“We’re determined to make sure that all law-abiding citizens are not forced to leave their Second Amendment rights at the state border when they travel into or through Illinois,” Gottlieb stated. “This is yet another example of trying to win back firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time.”

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 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

comments

  1. avatar Prndll says:

    Arm both sides against the middle!

    What could possibly go wrong?

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “What could possibly go wrong?”

      Besides a lively and vigorous debate with healthy exchanges of concepts, ideas and ballistic response?

  2. avatar Mark says:

    This is why I can’t visit my dad who lives in Chicago. I simply refuse to be unarmed.

    1. avatar LazrBeam says:

      I sympathize, Mark. Our eldest son and his family live in Chicago. I’m very uncomfortable going there unarmed. I love seeing our son and grandchildren but I always breathe a sigh of relief when we leave to return home.

  3. avatar Biff says:

    I hope they win. I’m in IL now and want to move north to WI. Unfortunately then you can’t carry in IL, where you are much more likely to have need of your CCW.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      I have a cousin who lives in Milwaukee. He complains that his once-conservative state now has a Democrat Governor and an increasingly hostile anti-gun attitude due to all the Lefty voters who migrated from Chicago.

      1. avatar Ogre says:

        As a former WI resident, I believe it when you say that all the Chicago migrants and a lefty governor have created an increasingly anti-gun atmosphere in the Dairy State. But I believe the lefty/progressive/liberal anti-gun democrats have only had success in their bastion areas, such as Milwaukee County and Madison/Dane County (home of the uber-liberal University of Wisconsin). I think most of the rest of the state (possibly except in the few college towns) remains pretty conservative and pro-gun (or gun neutral), and are likely to remain that way.

        As to Illinois, I had to disarm myself if I stopped there for any reason when I was travelling west to Wisconsin to visit my parents. Didn’t like that much. As long as Chicago-area politicians dominate the state government, Illinois will not get reciprocity, unless the federal courts drag them kicking and screaming into change. Or the U.S. Congress gets off its lazy arse and passes a national reciprocity law.

        1. avatar Nanashi says:

          Wisconsin is literally the state that when the options for president were Coolidge (the most solidly pro Constitution president ever) and a pretty conservative democrat, gave their their electoral votes to a third party socialist instead. Are we really going to say it’s Illinois expats behind it voting dem?

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Nanashi for the win!

          I have about 20 aunts, uncles, and first cousins that live (or were living when they died) in Wisconsin. They span the entire spectrum of careers from blue collar to white collar to stay-at-home mom and the entire spectrum of faith from atheist to agnostic to Christian to New-Age. They range from Milwaukee to Madison to La Crosse and even into the northern reaches of the state.

          Not a single one of them is anything even approaching conservative. Rather, they all solidly embrace Big Government and Socialism. And only two of them own any firearms at all — and those are hunting rifles for white-tailed deer (e.g. Fudds).

          As a result, I believe that Progressives outnumber Conservatives and Libertarians combined. The only reason that Conservative candidates ever win is when Progressives fail to get out and vote.

      2. avatar BatPenguin says:

        I am from Illinois, SOUTHERN ILLINOIS, I have noticed this trend of the stupid Democrat voters in my state leave because of the mess liberal democrat polices have caused. They then are so stupid to vote the same type of people into office in the state they moved to. I have a part time job and it is in retail and I work with the public. It is at a grocery store. I have lost faith that we can turn this country around. So many people depend and blindly trust our government and the MSM that I don’t think you can educate them otherwise. It is easier for them to NOT THINK.

      3. avatar tdiinva says:

        Your Cousin is wrong. Wisconsin has been more or less Progressive for a century. Evers defeated Scott Walker for his third term. Third term runs are notoriously unseccessful. Evers was also helped by a non-binding advisory referendum on marijuana in selected counties with a lot of college students. The legislature remained in Republican hands with slightly increased majorities.

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Wonder why the NRA isn’t supporting this effort?

  4. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    If a state issues a CCW license they should recognize other state’s CCWs. Same as DLs.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      The key word is “should”. That’s the key…

  5. avatar Ark says:

    ‘Member when Republicans held the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives and we all thought they’d pass reciprocity and silencer deregulation?

    1. avatar M1Lou says:

      We needed more senators to get it passed.

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      The Republican parties expertise lies in the form of stealing defeat from the jaws of victory and then they piss and moan well we tried.
      Rather like Lucy and the football.

    3. avatar pwrserge says:

      Funny… you’ll have to remind me when the GOP held 60 seats in the Senate necessary to pass legislation.

      1. avatar Someone says:

        I’m sure the Republicans did pass some other legislation. 60 seats are only necessary to break the filibuster. They could just let the Dems talk, taking turns until they were all blue in face. “We don’t have a filibuster proof majority” was only a convenient excuse for holding gun owners hostage without antagonazing the anti gunners.

    4. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      One of the reasons they lost the house. When we gave them the majority that they begged for, they did nothing but turn their backs on the president that WE elected. the bozos have forgotten who they work for. They promise all sorts of things then when they get elected they move in and put a for sale sigh on their office doors.

  6. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    The law of the land is constitutional carry for all 50 states.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      This.
      “Gottlieb stated. “This is yet another example of trying to win back firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time.”
      16 hours of mandatory class time, hundreds of dollars fees for a permission to exercise the constitutionally protected human right? His dictionary must have different meaning of “freedom”.

  7. avatar Cknarf says:

    Hey, we have a twice-as-expensive Non-resident permit. Isn’t that enough?

  8. avatar Mark H says:

    Clear 14th amendment case. Don’t even need to invoke the 2nd.

    Kalifornistan is the same way. Only way to get a CCW is from your local CLEO, so no way for someone out of state to get one or otherwise legally carry.

    1. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

      Is this the first step to interstate reciprocity under the 14th Amendment?
      Alan Gottleib is THAT smart.

  9. avatar JUST HARD FACTS says:

    Why is this a thing! THis is America! We have birth rights from our Creator solidified in the 2nd Amendment!

    THere should never be a permit to access ur God Given Natural Rights!

    Do dogs and cats have to permit their teef & claws??????

    Is a permit required to buy a book? Maybe if a Dem is elected!

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      “There should never be a permit to access ur God Given Natural Rights!”

      Correct there is no need to ask the crown for it’s permission.

  10. avatar former water walker says:

    Why would ANYONE move to ILLinois except for work??? The missus and I are planning to migrate to Hoosierland as soon as she gets her SS check. We already spend most of our $ in Indiana and our formerly quiet burb is seeing an uptick in crime.

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      FWW, do you have a city in mind in Indiana? Lake County (the “Region”) isn’t what it was 50-60 years ago. Southern IN is quite nice, though.

  11. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    FACT CHECK REQUIRED.

    Something is not adding up in this article. Are the plaintiffs asking the courts to require national reciprocity with this lawsuit?

    Otherwise, I could swear I remember reading the following highlights in Illinois’ concealed carry law:
    (1) Illinois does NOT recognize out-of-state concealed carry licenses.
    (2) Illinois DOES offer non-resident Illinois concealed carry licenses.
    (3) Non-residents from ALL states can get a non-resident Illinois concealed carry license.

    What I remember therefore disagrees with the referenced article.

    Can anyone shed some FACTUAL light on this discrepancy?

    1. avatar Mercury says:

      Item 3 is incorrect. Illinois will issue non-resident permits ONLY to residents of Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas and Virginia. And no, the article does not make this clear; the way it’s worded sounds like they recognize licenses to carry issued by those states, but they don’t. You must be a resident of one of those four states to receive a non-resident permit from Illinois.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Mercury,

        Thank you for the clarification. (I thought I was losing my mind. I might still be!)

        Any wild guess as to why Illinois will only issue non-resident concealed carry licenses to those four specific states?

        And any idea whether that is in the law or if it is the practice of the Illinois State Police (or whoever administers their licensing)?

        1. avatar Mercury says:

          The text of Illinois law is mercifully searchable (this particular one at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3497&ChapterID=39) so I’m able to answer that question as well: yes, it’s at the discretion of the Department of State Police because of a clause stating that said department may rule that applications “from any state or territory of the United States with laws related to firearm ownership, possession, and carrying, that are substantially similar to [Illinois law]” (sec. 40 in the link.) Whether the State Police so decided because of some real or imagined similarity to each of those four states’ laws, or whether this goes back to the time when TX, MS and AR effectively banned the carry of handguns (don’t know about VA) in the interest of disarming blacks, I do not know. The reasons for choosing those four states, or even the dates of the choosing, do not appear to be a matter of public record (at least not the kind that one can find on the Internet.)

    2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      It could be the *requirements* for a non-resident permit are onerous because they, for all practical purposes, still need to be an Illinois resident to get one, probably because of the training requirements and multiple, time-consuming steps to qualify for one.

      It may be like NYC (hypothetically) saying sure, we offer an out-of-state permit, you have to meet our requirements for the paperwork avalanche, multiple in-person interviews, and multi-day training and proficiency demonstrations required.

      Make it so difficult, no one bothers trying.

      Sounds to me like this could make an *ideal* justice Clarence Thomas “You will give the 2A the respect it deserves” case that could lead to 50-state carry, if we play it right…

  12. avatar Ironhead says:

    Trust me, they do not want to be treated equally to Illinois residents. Why in God’s name would you want that?

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      Good Lord, it would be so *sweet* if it ends up the oppressive Chicago political machine ends up being the reason the 2A starts getting the national respect it deserves.

      If granted cert, this could be *huge*.

      Crossing fingers, toes, and naughty-bits this comes to pass… 😉

      1. avatar Someone says:

        Nah, I would not get my hopes up. Call me cynical, but I think that even if SAF wins, it will be formulated as narrow as possible. Like, “okay, out of state citizens now can apply for IL concealed carry permit, of course after jumping through all the hoops and paying through the nose. Congratulations! Freedom!”

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email