Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

Culp v Raoul (19-487): SCOTUS - Cert Petition - NonResident Carry & the Right to Travel

2K views 25 replies 9 participants last post by  Malum Prohibitum 
#1 ·
Filed yesterday, 10/15/2019 (response due 11/14)

http://supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-487/118726/20191010153220737_38416%20pdf%20Sigale%20br.pdf…

Docket: https://supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-487.html

Culp v Raoul (19-487): SCOTUS - Cert Petition

In The Supreme Court of the United States

---------------------------------  ---------------------------------

KEVIN W. CULP, MARLOW DAVIS, FREDDIE REEDDAVIS, DOUGLAS W. ZYLSTRA, JOHN S. KOLLER, STEVE STEVENSON, PAUL HESLIN, MARLIN MANGELS, JEANELLE WESTROM, SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC., ILLINOIS CARRY AND ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION, Petitioners,

v.

KWAME RAOUL, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Illinois; BRENDAN F. KELLY, in his Official Capacity as Acting Director of the Illinois State Police, and JESSICA TRAME, as Bureau Chief of the Illinois State Police Firearms Services Bureau, Respondents.

---------------------------------  ---------------------------------

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari
To The United States Court Of Appeals
For The Seventh Circuit


---------------------------------  ---------------------------------

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

---------------------------------  ---------------------------------

DAVID G. SIGALE
LAW FIRM OF DAVID G. SIGALE, P.C.
799 Roosevelt Road, Suite 207
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

This Court has held that the Second Amendment "guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 ( 2008 ). Illinois prohibits the non-residents of 45 states from applying for an Illinois concealed carry license, regardless of their individual qualifications and training.

The question presented is:

Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms requires that the State of Illinois allow qualified non-residents to apply for an Illinois concealed carry license.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Ah. This was a matter of great interest to me previously. I had even considered getting involved in litigation of this type. I am glad to see the issue being raised again. I hope they are arguing the "right to travel." The Second Circuit, before Heller, basically said that this is a winning argument, except for the fact that there is no individual right contained in the Second Amendment. Too bad nobody else has brought a case in the Second Circuit since then.


This would affect many states. Illinois. California. Oregon. Washington, Nevada, New Mexico, Nebraska, Minnesota, Illinois, Virginia, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and the federal territory of DC. It ought also to be applied to US territories, e.g., Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico (both of which I would be more inclined to visit if they were reciprocal or I could apply for a license there)
 
#3 · (Edited)
It is an interesting case. IL will not let the Petitioners file a petition for a non-resident CCL. Residents of 5 states are permitted to file but residents of the other states cannot get the completed forms accepted and put into the consideration/processing pile. Move from Ga to Va 8) and you can file. Live in Ga and your petition is not accepted for processing.

Nemo
 
#4 ·
Virginia and Oregon might get away with arguing that no license is required when carrying openly (but that is hard to do when the temperature drops below 32). Illinois has no such argument, because carrying openly without a license is illegal. I hate being disarmed when I travel to Chicago for work.
 
#7 ·
He is going to Chicago. He wants liberalized. Or some such.

Nemo
 
#9 ·
He is a right decent sized feller but he sure ain't near big enough to bother to start. Especially going that far away.

Nemo
 
#15 ·
Culp v Raoul (19-487): Amicus brief of MO, AL, AZ, AR, GA, ID, IN, KS, MT, NE, ND, OH, OK, SC, SD, TX, UT, and WV
https://t.co/OemdeYCCPq
Americans do not lose their constitutional rights when they cross state lines. The right to free speech, for example, has no geographic boundaries.​

Wow, that's a really good brief.
 
#16 ·
Yet here, “a colonel in the United States Air Force licensed as a concealed-carry instructor in Illinois cannot apply for a concealed- carry license of his own” simply because he does not live in Illinois.
 
#17 ·
"[T]here is no evidence in the record that Illinois could not pursue its goal in a more targeted way that would respect the fundamental right at stake." App. 31 (Manion, J., dissenting). One option is reciprocity. For example, thirty-six states recognize a Missouri concealed carry permit; Illinois is one of the few exceptions. See "Concealed Carry Reciprocity," http://ago.mo.gov/criminal-division/public-safety/concealed-carry-reciprocity (last accessed November 7, 2019). Indeed, Illinois treats a Missouri CCL as a sufficient predictor of law-abidingness for transporting a firearm on Illinois roads, see 430 ILCS 66/40(e), but pleads an "information shortfall" once a Missouri driver gets out of his or her car, App. 7.
 
#19 ·
I guess the high summer humidity in Ga has something to do with them not going squishy there.

Nemo
 
#23 ·
The question presented is:​
Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms requires that the State of Illinois allow qualified non-residents to apply for an Illinois con- cealed carry license.​


Question not answered.



Based on Culp I, the District Court on September 18, 2017, granted the Respondents summary judgment and denied summary judgment to the Petitioners (App. 81), even though the Respondents still had not shown any actual harm resulting from allowing the non- resident CCL applications.​
On April 12, 2019, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. 921 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2019) (App. 1, 26). The panel ma- jority saw the interest of the State as “ensuring the ongoing eligibility of who carries a firearm in public” (App. 17), discussed the State’s “information deficit,” id., and upheld the ban under intermediate scrutiny. Id.​
Petitioners moved for a panel rehearing or rehear- ing en banc, but the requests were denied. App. 106.​
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top