The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Illinois, challenging the state’s ban on concealed carry by young adults between the ages of 18 and 21, alleging the ban violates the Second and 14th Amendment rights of those citizens.
Joining SAF are the Illinois State Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., and three private citizens in the 18-21-year age group, David Meyer, Eva Davis and Mitchell Nalley. They are represented by attorneys David G. Sigale of David G. Sigale, P.C. in Wheaton, Ill., Christian D. Ambler of Stone & Johnson in Chicago and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom, all with Cooper & Kirk PLLC in Washington, D.C. The case is known as Meyer v. Raoul.
Named as defendants are Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly, State’s Attorney of Fayette County Joshua C. Morrison, State’s Attorney of St. Clair County James Gomric, State’s Attorney for Kendall County Eric Weis, Fayette County Sheriff Christopher Palmer, St. Clair County Sheriff Richard Watson and Kendall County Sheriff Dwight A. Baird, in their official and individual capacities.
“All law-abiding citizens of this country are considered adults at the age of 18 for nearly all purposes,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “They can vote, enter into contracts, start businesses, get married and join the military. But the state prohibits them from exercising the fundamental right to bear arms, that is, to carry a handgun outside the home or in an automobile, even though the state allows other adults to obtain a license to carry firearms in public.
“This is not our first legal encounter in Illinois,” he noted. “First we had the landmark McDonald v. City of Chicago Supreme Court victory that nullified Chicago’s handgun ban and incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment. That opened the doors for other cases around the country. We successfully litigated Ezell v. City of Chicago when the city tried to get creative with its handgun law. We won again with Moore v. Madigan, forcing the Illinois Legislature to adopt a concealed carry statute, which we’re very proud of. And we’ve had other successful legal battles, so Illinois is familiar ground to us.
The lawsuit notes, “Moreover, young adults between eighteen and twenty-one were fully protected by the Second Amendment at the time of its ratification. Hundreds of statutes from the colonial and founding eras required 18-to-20-year-olds to keep and bear arms.”
“We’re asking the court to remedy this situation by issuing an injunction against further enforcement of the ban on our individual plaintiffs and other young adults facing the same situation,” Gottlieb said. “Citizens in this age group enjoy nearly all of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution except when it comes to the Second Amendment. This cannot be allowed to stand.”
- Mason born - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 7:15 am:
Seems a bit premature unless they’re of a mind the judge is going to overturn the federal prohibition on FFL sales to under 21 purchasers of handguns. It would also seem wiser to wait for the outcome of the NYSRPA v. Corlett first.
- We've never had one before - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 7:16 am:
Our daughters in the 18-to-20 age group need self-protection, just as their mothers do.
- Todd - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 7:50 am:
Mason –
possession is not the same as purchase.
- Captain Obvious - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 7:54 am:
If 18 year olds were not mature enough to carry guns, they wouldn’t let them join the military.
- Mason born - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 7:56 am:
Todd -
I’m well aware they can still possess one if they get it from a non ffl, a gift, etc. but wouldn’t the same infringement the suit is objecting to apply to a federal law that prohibits them from buying a pistol from the local Cabelas? I just think they should address that 1st.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 8:11 am:
=== If 18 year olds were not mature enough to carry guns, they wouldn’t let them join the military.===
It’s “obvious” the 18 year olds get training in firearms in the military…
- Pot calling kettle - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 8:14 am:
===All law-abiding citizens of this country are considered adults at the age of 18 for nearly all purposes===
Except smoking, drinking alcohol, weed…then there is the conservative assertion that women do not ever control their own wombs…
- JS Mill - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 8:27 am:
Concealed carry under 21 is what they are talking about here, not whether or not they can posses gun.
My answer is no. My son does not need a CCL at 18. The arguments made by these groups are easily flipped as there are things that 18-20 year olds cannot do even though 18 is typically considered the age of maturity. CCL is and should be one of those mileposts.
The argument that there were “Hundreds of statutes from the colonial and founding eras required 18-to-20-year-olds to keep and bear arms” is completely, and I believe intentionally, misleading and without context of the times. Are we to revert back to all “colonial” statutes? (which by the way are not legally relevant given that we were under English law during the colonial era). I also question their statement given that English law often forbade subjects from owning weapons. In context of the times the weapons they used were black powder muskets and pistols. All single shot.
=Our daughters in the 18-to-20 age group need self-protection,=
Are you comfortable going back to colonial era laws for your daughters?
Too many over 21 lack the discipline and emotional stability to own guns much less practice CCL. We do not need to allow it for teens now.
- thisjustinagain - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 8:53 am:
Great news to hear that legal adults (18 is the “age of majority” in Illinois; they can legally sign contracts, be charged as adults with crimes) are fighting for their right to keep and bear arms. Illinois has for far too long treated the 2nd Amendment as the “2nd Suggestion”. Training arguments are red herrings as well; they could take hunter or concealed carry training. The bottom line is there is no reason to deny them their rights based on some “magic age range” and the law violates the 2nd Amendment.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 8:57 am:
===Training arguments are red herrings as well===
I guess all that basic training the military requires is a red herring too?
That would be news to the armed forces.
- City Guy - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 9:29 am:
The military provides a lot more than training. It is a very controlled environment. The typical 20 year old going to work and school and hanging out with friends is a very uncontrolled environment.
The 2nd Amendment is no a free pass that allows people to obtain and use any weapon of war they want. Like all the Constitutional Amendments there is case law that clarify the boundaries.
- Skeptic - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 9:32 am:
Whenever I see a picture of soldier, his/her firearms are far from concealed.
- OneMan - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 9:34 am:
When my daughter started college in Kansas they had just changed the law to eliminate concealed carry bans on campus (including the dorms). So I looked into it there since I thought it might make sense to get her trained on how to clear and make a handgun safe if she ever encountered one (like a roommate had one or something),
When I looked into it I found that the well-known liberal bastion of Kansas had and still has a 21-year-old age limit on it.
Using the ‘well they are old enough to’ argument I look forward to you pushing changes in gaming law to allow them to bet a casinos and at video poker machines.
- RNUG - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 9:45 am:
While not the same level of training as provided by the military, let’s not lose sight of the fact that Illinois requires more training than any other State to qualify for a concealed carry permit.
- JS Mill - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 9:45 am:
= deny them their rights based on some “magic age range” and the law violates the 2nd Amendment.=
So you are ok with an 8 year olds right to concealed carry? I mean the 2nd Amendment does not mention a particular age to this right which shall not be infringed upon. Or maybe the long established (by the USSC) right of government to establish limits makes some sense?
You may also notice that nobody is toting a bazooka or stinger missile while walking down the street. Further examples of lawful limits on the “right” to keep and bear arms.
There is no unlimited “right” to concealed carry of weapons. Like all “rights” there are limits which have long been established and upheld by the USSC.
- Cheryl44 - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 9:46 am:
=Our daughters in the 18-to-20 age group need self-protection,=
Odd then, I got to be in my 60s without needing that kind of protection.
- Elmer Keith - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 10:00 am:
The Second Amendment Foundation is basically Alan Gottlieb, who is one of the guys in the 2A movement who does not sell out gun owners, unlike the NRA. He supported Otis McDonald in the McDonald v. Chicago lawsuit which led to the Supreme Court incorporating the 2nd Amendment to the states, when NRA opposed it behind the scenes.
That being said, this suit is a sideshow and designed to appeal to the ISRA base of white people living in small towns, like Richard Pearson in Chatsworth. You will notice that none of the “pro-gun” orgs have filed suit to remove the ban on public transpo carry, or the Duty to Inform/Duty to be killed by police that former NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde placed in the 2013 IL concealed carry bill. That’s because “law abiding” ISRA members in the “real America” of Illinois’ small towns could really care less about black gun owners like Otis. They do like to use them as fronts for lawsuits though. The worse Illinois gun laws are, the more profit lawyers like Sigale make “fixing” gun lobbyist sellouts.
- Mason born - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 10:03 am:
Let’s face it we treat the age between 18 and 21 in a wildly illogical way. We tell them they are adults, punish them like adults, let them enter into contracts as if they are adults while at the same time telling them they are children we have to oversee when it comes to tobacco, alchohol, and yes handguns.
You can choose to enlist to go to war at 18 but you can’t go to a casino with your buddies and have a beer because you’re not old enough to make those decisions.
We should all stop pretending this is about logic.
The Case before the USSC may answer this question as to what are and are not acceptable limits on the right to bear arms. Hopefully the ruling is at least clear enough we know some guardrails on this topic.
- Demoralized - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 10:13 am:
==or the Duty to Inform==
You don’t think you should have to inform an officer you are carrying a gun? If that’s truly what you believe then you are the kind of person who gives your cause a bad name.
As for 18 year olds being able to conceal carry - absolutely not. My 18 year old is just graduating high school. There is absolutely no way a high school student has any business being allowed to conceal carry.
- Chisox - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 10:21 am:
OW- IL requires completion of 2 day 16 hour training to get CCL.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 10:28 am:
=== IL requires completion of 2 day 16 hour training to get CCL===
You may want to remind - thisjustinagain -
As for me, I’ve been an advocate of CCL, I also look at age and that 18-21 differential.
I’ve been one to lean 21 on things like alcohol, and CCL… unless in military service, with ID, then 18.
I don’t think you can present yourself as a member of our armed forces falsely… so there’s that.
- Nadigam - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 10:44 am:
==or the Duty to Inform==
I have watched @Elmer Keith go off on this subject for a few years now. There is no duty to voluntarily inform law enforcement you are carrying a concealed firearm legally. You have a duty to inform if the law enforcement officer asks. But, why wouldn’t you want inform the officer that you are carrying?
- Noah's Snark - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 10:50 am:
“You don’t think you should have to inform an officer you are carrying a gun?”
Unless they ask, why should I, particularly if its a routine traffic stop. Concealed is concealed and its no one’s business.
- Todd - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 10:51 am:
Mason –
I’m not a fan of this suit as I think there are better fruits to be picked, but it is not illegal for someone under the age of 21 with a FOID to be in possession. That would be different than being able to buy, which would be the next logical suit going down this rabbit hole.
Demoralized — pay no mind to Elmer. he’s been grinding that same single note b flat organ for years. when we were working on CC before the court case, we made an agreement with the chiefs and sheriff’s assn for their support. That agreement included a duty to inform if asked in the final bill. Illinois has one of the least imposing requirements, but somehow, it’s what sticks in Elmer’s attic and has for years. And I guess I get to live rent free in his cranium.
- Mason born - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 11:10 am:
Noah-
Question, even if you don’t have a duty to inform would you prefer the officer be surprised you’re carrying a gun when you reach for your insurance card or that you tell them you have it and a permit before hand?
I personally prefer not giving the undertrained officer a reason to panic and pull their duty weapon. It may not be their business but i do like not getting shot. but to each his own.
- Skeptic - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 11:42 am:
“It may not be their business but i do like not getting shot. but to each his own.” Who says irony is dead?
- FormerParatrooper - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 12:29 pm:
I am divided on this subject. I look back to when I was 18, the responsibilities I had and the maturity level I was at and say of course at 18 carry. Then I look at 18 year olds today, and wonder if they should be allowed outside without supervision.
Such decisions should not be based upon how we feel about the current crop of 18 year olds, but consistency of what we have been advocating that age group to be allowed. We legislated 18 was old enough to vote, enter contracts and fight overseas in combat. We either be consistent in what constitutes an adult age or we reconsider raising the age of majority to 21 if we believe that is the age of maturity.
- Unconventionalwisdom - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 2:49 pm:
The 18-21 age for rights and responsibilities in Illinois, and much of the nation, are rather schizoid. In Illinois you can vote, get married on your own, serve on a jury but can not drink or buy tobacco.
This state. and the nation needs, to get its act together and show some common sense.
18 or 21? Make up your mind.
- thisjustinagain - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 3:13 pm:
To J.S. Mill’s comments: You’ve ignored the legit points I raised to go several rabbit holes at ones. 8 years olds carrying? Uh, nobody is talking about that except you. Ditto carrying Stinger missiles and the other foolish things you argued. And in legal fact the SCOTUS has not even ruled on the age-range denials yet; you can’t bootstrap their support of certain restrictions as global proof the right doesn’t exist for 18 to 21 year olds.
- Political Animal - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 3:36 pm:
My thought is that it’s strange to put “teens” in your headline when the topic is about adults, unless you’re trying to prime your audience’s opinions.
- anon2 - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 3:36 pm:
== If 18 year olds were not mature enough to carry guns, they wouldn’t let them join the military.==
If 18-year olds were mature enough to carry guns, then they’d be able to purchase alcohol and run for the General Assembly.
== I’ve been one to lean 21 on things like alcohol, and CCL… unless in military service, with ID, then 18.==
A good way to test whether the old-enough-to-fight argument is genuine is to see if the person offering it would accept a compromise permitting only those 18-20 year olds serving in the military to carry. In my experience, they won’t.
- Phil King - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 3:39 pm:
“Should adults be able to exercise their natural right to self defense prior to the age of 18?”
“If you’re old enough to serve in the military and defend our country, are you old enough to defend yourself from crime and tyranny?”
If you frame the question properly, doesn’t seem hard to answer.
- Woodcutter - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 3:50 pm:
The fact that 18 year-olds aren’t are prohibited from buying alcohol, firearms, pot, etc., is mostly because they are a small minority of the electorate, and one which has a poor record in even turning out to vote. There is really no GOOD reason to deny 18, 19, and 20 year-olds the same legal rights as other adults. It’s just politically too easy for politicians to blame such a small minority for various social problems and then deny them their rights.
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 28, 21 @ 3:56 pm:
===My thought is===
Get your own blog.