921 F.3d 646
7th Cir.2019Background
- Illinois enacted the Firearm Concealed Carry Act (FCCA) after Moore v. Madigan, authorizing concealed-carry licenses with identical substantive eligibility rules for residents and nonresidents (disqualifying recent involuntary mental admissions, certain violent misdemeanors, multiple DUI offenses, etc.).
- Illinois conducts extensive initial background checks and daily monitoring for resident licensees via state criminal and mental-health systems; it lacks equivalent access to out-of-state criminal and mental-health records and cannot compel other states to provide them.
- To address that information gap, Illinois issues nonresident concealed-carry licenses only to residents of states whose firearm laws and reporting practices are "substantially similar" (as determined by State Police surveys); as of the record, four states qualified.
- Plaintiffs (nonresidents from states not deemed "substantially similar") challenged the requirement as violating the Second Amendment, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Equal Protection, and Due Process; they do not contest Illinois's substantive disqualifications.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Illinois; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, relying on the uncontested factual showing of an information deficit and concluding the substantial-similarity requirement survives intermediate scrutiny and does not violate Article IV.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Second Amendment: may IL limit nonresident licensing based on state-of-residence proxy? | Plaintiffs: the Second Amendment protects public carry and strict scrutiny prevents barring law-abiding nonresidents from applying. | Illinois: core right is not unlimited; state may tailor licensing to ensure public safety given information shortfall; substantial-similarity is a regulatory proxy. | The substantial-similarity requirement is consistent with the Second Amendment; intermediate scrutiny satisfied given uncontested information deficit. |
| Equal treatment / Privileges & Immunities (Art. IV) | Plaintiffs: categorically denies nonresidents from 45 states the same concealed-carry privilege as residents. | Illinois: Clause protects only certain fundamental/national privileges; regulation justified by public-safety need to verify and monitor qualifications. | Clause not violated; discriminatory effect is justified and bears substantial relation to IL's monitoring interest. |
| Equal Protection / Due Process | Plaintiffs: regime discriminates and deprives rights without adequate process. | Illinois: no precedent makes concealed carry a Fourteenth Amendment liberty or fundamental equal-protection category beyond the Second Amendment analysis. | Claims fail—no independent Fourteenth Amendment right identified; resolution rests on Second Amendment analysis. |
| Remedy / scope | Plaintiffs: seek broad declaration invalidating requirement as applied to them and residents of 45 states. | Illinois: evidentiary record shows present information deficit; may change if monitoring capability improves. | Court declines broad invalidation; leaves open future relief if information deficits abate. |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects individual right to possess firearms in the home; rights are not unlimited)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Second Amendment incorporated against the states)
- Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012) (Seventh Circuit held right to bear arms extends beyond the home, prompting states to craft licensing regimes)
- Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) (firearms regulations must be substantially related to an important government interest)
- United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (recognizes permissible limits on gun possession for dangerous persons)
- Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985) (Privileges and Immunities Clause protects only certain national or fundamental privileges)
- Barnard v. Thorstenn, 489 U.S. 546 (1989) (state must show substantial reason and close relation to objective when a regulation burdens nonresidents' privileges)
- Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948) (Privileges and Immunities analysis and limits on discriminatory state burdens)