SAF Sues Illinois over LTC Residency Requirements

press1280 said:

Opinion out https://www.conservativereview.com/...-law-to-restrict-your-second-amendment-rights

I know it's only a preliminary injunction but the standard was basically rational basis.
If I were them I'd go for en banc.

Click to expand...

press1280 said:

Opinion out https://www.conservativereview.com/...-law-to-restrict-your-second-amendment-rights

I know it's only a preliminary injunction but the standard was basically rational basis.
If I were them I'd go for en banc.

Click to expand...

lonzo said:

Why isn't more/any lawsuits, esp about 2A doesn't focus on this;

"the Constitution itself in Article IV requires states to give “Full Faith and Credit” to the “public Acts, Records, and judicial proceedings of every other State.” There is no rational public safety reason for states to refuse to recognize the concealed-carry licenses issued by other states other than their hostility to the Second Amendment."

Click to expand...

swinokur said:

as I understand this, the court simply denied the request for the PI. The case will still go to trial.

is this correct?

Click to expand...

swinokur said:

thanks Press

Click to expand...

press1280 said:

It's worth mentioning though, in the footnote by Manion that both sides pretty much agreed there really isn't much more to be learned from a trial.

I'd like to see what Esq thinks about this rational basis opinion.

Click to expand...

wjackcooper said:

Posner was appointed by Ronald Reagan. Apparently was conservative, but now not so much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner

Regards
Jack

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

Tough case. First, the predicate for the decision is the court's prior decision in Berron v. Illinois Concealed Carry Licensing Review Bd., 825 F.3d 843, 845 (2016), that a licensing system is constitutional. Illinois is shall issue now, but it has a lot of requirements, e.g., 16 hours of training and verification of elements of the requirements. So the issue before the court on an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction was whether it is constitutional for Illinois to restrict its licensing system for non-residents to states that have a "substantially similar" licensing system to that of Illinois, including the verification requirements. Note, it is not a flat ban on permits to non-residents (like SC and CO). The dissent says that the verification requirement is subject to heightened scrutiny. I quite agree with the dissent that that the majority did not examine the verification requirement, as implemented, under heightened scrutiny. I also agree with the dissent that the court should have done so.

Still, the majority opinion could be read as saying that verification requirement is constitutional per se (viz., even under heightened scrutiny), as the licensing scheme itself (not challenged by plaintiffs) is itself constitutional. Such a ruling (sub silentio), might well satisfy heightened scrutiny for carry outside the home (assuming again that the licensing itself is constitutional). After all, the argument would go, if it is constitutional to require verification, then surely it is constitutional to deny the license to those for whom verification is impossible. The majority gave the plaintiffs a chance to address that question on remand; what the majority said was "The critical problem presented by the plaintiffs’ demand—for which they offer no solution—is verification." The majority didn't explain what plaintiffs needed to show. If plaintiffs can come up with a verification "solution," they still may win. We shall see what plaintiffs do.

Click to expand...

swinokur said:

Not just NICS reporting, thise states also prohibit issuance for any admission to a mental health facility in the previous 5 years

Click to expand...

press1280 said:

I believe the major issue why so many states do not qualify is due to most not reporting voluntary commitments to NICS. I don't even know if there's some kind of certification that can be obtained confirming this. Seems backwards that plaintiffs have to go through these hoops when the state should just say exactly what it is that'll satisfy the requirements.

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

States cannot be compelled to make reports to NICS. See Printz v. United States, 521 US 898 (1997). Printz holds that the federal government cannot commandeer the states to a federal objective. It follows, a fortiori, that other states need not cater to Illinois' need for verification. These are all independent sovereigns. So, plaintiffs have to come up with a "solution" that will show that the need of Illinois for verification can be accomplished through other means so as to demonstrate that the Illinois practice places an unnecessary burden on the right to carry. Here, the burden on the right is a given. The state has come forward and justified the burden by arguing that the verification requirement cannot be met for these out of state residents. The trial is about whether the state has made the necessary showing that the verification need requires denial where there are (?) alternative means for accompanying the same objective. This is the sort of analysis applicable in First Amendment burden cases. For an example of that see McClullen v. Coakley, 134 SCT 2518 (2014)

Click to expand...