Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN Legal & Legislation

NRA Supports Two Concealed Carry Cases in Illinois

Thursday, November 6, 2014

In recent years the Land of Lincoln has been host to some of the nation’s most important battles for the Second Amendment, including McDonald v. City of Chicago, Shepard v. Madigan,and Moore v. Madigan. This trend continued with two new Illinois cases, one challenging the state’s concealed carry licensing practices in federal court (Illinois State Rifle Association v. Grau), the other challenging them in state court (Illinois Carry v. Illinois Department of State Police).

In April, NRA’s Illinois state affiliate, the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA), and license applicant Steven Thomas filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Director of the Illinois State Police and members of the state’s Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In 2013, after court decisions invalidated Illinois’ complete ban on carry outside the home, the General Assembly enacted what is essentially a shall-issue concealed carry licensing law. The law, however, allows law enforcement officials to file objections to applications under some circumstances. The suit took issue with the state’s practice of denying license applications under the objection provisions, claiming that the denials lack the due process required by the U.S. Constitution.

Under the law, the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board is empowered to make determinations as to whether an applicant subject to an objection “pose[s] a danger to himself, herself, or others, or a threat to public safety” and to grant or deny the license accordingly. The complaint cited the Board practice of sustaining objections and denying licenses without explanation to the applicant of the reasons for these decisions, much less opportunity for the applicants to challenge the determinations. “Notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard are the most fundamental requirements of due process,” the complaint states, “and every applicant is entitled to make his case at some time in some way before someone with the power to grant his application.” 

Thomas’ application for a carry license was denied via letter, with the complaint noting that “[t]o date, Mr. Thomas has not been informed of the basis for the objection.” The complaint went on to explain that Thomas was never provided an opportunity to address the Board’s concerns about his license application and that he was denied due to the “objections to the [Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board] from an unnamed law enforcement agency.” Several ISRA members have had denial experiences similar to Thomas’s.

Under Illinois’ law, those denied licenses by the Review Board are entitled to a judicial review of their denial. However, no new testimony or evidence can be examined in such a proceeding.  Moreover, in the cases cited in the complaint, the Review Board has withheld the reasons for which the applicants were denied, so the applicants could not adequately address the alleged concerns in their response to the denials. Thus, persons denied by the Review Board have never been allowed a meaningful opportunity to offer evidence on their behalves. 

The complaint asked the court to deem Illinois’ current concealed carry license review procedures a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause and to reconsider the applications of those mentioned in the suit who have been harmed by the current policies.

After the case was filed, the Illinois State Police (ISP) essentially conceded that the procedures under which the plaintiffs were denied did not comport with due process and published a set of emergency rules that purported to address the issues of notice and opportunity to be heard. While the rules did not resolve all objections to the licensing procedures, lead plaintiff Thomas was able to obtain additional information about his denial and to provide a response, and his application was subsequently approved. Based on this favorable outcome, the plaintiffs agreed to dismissal of the federal case. 

The state-level case raises similar issues before the Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Illinois. The complaint was brought on behalf of several Illinoisans who were denied licenses, along with the gun rights organization Illinois Carry, against the Illinois Department of State Police and members of the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board.

As with the federal suit, the state case cites inadequate opportunities for applicants to be heard and to contest their denials. The state plaintiffs, however, resort to the due process protections afforded under the Illinois Constitution. The complaint asks that the court find Illinois’ current procedure unlawful and that the plaintiffs’ applications be reconsidered “in a manner that comports with the Due Process Clause of the Illinois Constitution.” Because of distinctions in the circumstances of the cases and the protections afforded under the due process clauses of the constitutions of Illinois and the United States, the state case has gone forward, despite issuance of the ISP’s new emergency rules.

While cases involving semi-auto bans and right to carry restrictions garner much of the gun litigation headlines, cases involving constitutional due process are also of great importance. Due process ensures government officials cannot arbitrarily deny a person life, liberty, or property based on unsupported accusations or arbitrary decisions.  

TRENDING NOW
Gun Control Lobby Seeks to Thwart SHARE Act with Hysteria, Fear Mongering

News  

Hunting  

Friday, September 22, 2017

Gun Control Lobby Seeks to Thwart SHARE Act with Hysteria, Fear Mongering

The panic is now starting to set in amongst the gun control lobby, which is desperately searching for ways to smear a bill that has been around for years in various forms without attracting much ...

Washington Post Employs Deceptive Tactic on “Children” and Guns

News  

Friday, September 22, 2017

Washington Post Employs Deceptive Tactic on “Children” and Guns

The Washington Post has surpassed the Brady Campaign and Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety to take a place alongside the New York Times as the premier anti-gun propagandists in the country.

Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll Throws Wrench in Anti-gun Agenda

News  

Friday, September 8, 2017

Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll Throws Wrench in Anti-gun Agenda

Demonstrating the importance of the gun issue to the American electorate, 35 percent of respondents reported that “gun rights or gun control” had an impact on their voting behavior. The issue was the highest-rated answer, ...

Reuniting The United States With Reciprocity

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Reuniting The United States With Reciprocity

Most concealed-carry permit holders understand the potential pitfalls of traveling with a firearm, given the outrageous patchwork of state laws involved in even a short interstate trip. And while we haven’t posted much about reciprocity ...

Long Term Trends in Gun Sales Remain Strong

News  

Friday, September 22, 2017

Long Term Trends in Gun Sales Remain Strong

Discussion of the state of the firearms industry began again with the release of the August NICS numbers. Allegations of a fading industry recur every month. Obama was the greatest gun salesman ever, Hillary Clinton ...

Rhode Island:  House Gives Final Approval to Gun Control Bill

Friday, September 22, 2017

Rhode Island: House Gives Final Approval to Gun Control Bill

House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello summoned lawmakers back to Providence in a rare September session, and the House passed an anti-gun bill Tuesday afternoon.  The session had abruptly ended in June with the budget and a ...

UK: Growing Support for Arming More Police

News  

Friday, September 22, 2017

UK: Growing Support for Arming More Police

The UK’s fear of firearms, and potential weapons of all kinds, is well-documented. Subjects are urged not to carry any item, such as pepper spray, that might be adapted for self-defense. Officers take to social media to boast of ...

Anti-Gun Politicians: Blocking Out The Facts About Suppressors

Hunting  

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Anti-Gun Politicians: Blocking Out The Facts About Suppressors

As soon as the Hearing Protection Act was put forward on Jan. 9, 2017, leftists came out of the woodwork to criticize and misconstrue the goals of those who supported removing suppressors from the auspices ...

National Reciprocity Bill Nears Goal Line in the House but Needs Your Support to Reach the End Zone

News  

Friday, September 15, 2017

National Reciprocity Bill Nears Goal Line in the House but Needs Your Support to Reach the End Zone

Gun owners received good news this week with the passage of the SHARE Act by the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources (see related story). Meanwhile, progress continued to be made on another NRA legislative ...

House Committee Passes SHARE Act by Wide Margin

Hunting  

News  

Friday, September 15, 2017

House Committee Passes SHARE Act by Wide Margin

As we have reported, this year’s version of the SHARE Act is the most expansive and far-reaching yet. Besides previously-introduced provisions aimed at enhancing opportunities for hunting, fishing, and shooting and broadening access to federal lands ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -
NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.