Sunday, August 22, 2010

Oh, I want this case to succeed; it'll make the whole

Illinois power structure hemorrhage purple kittens.
In this case, Mishaga v. Monken, the Illinois State Police are being sued by Ellen Mishaga for violating her Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Mrs. Mishaga is a resident of Ohio who frequently visits friends in Illinois on overnight trips. While staying in her friend's home, she wants to be able to have a loaded firearm for self-protection. However, this would violate the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act, 430 ILCS 65/2 (10), which requires non-residents to keep their firearms unloaded and enclosed in a case. The other exceptions to the requirement to have a FOID card involve law enforcement officials, non-resident hunters, or competitors in shooting competitions - none of which apply to her. The full list can be found here.

As the suit states with regard to her Second Amendment rights:

9. The Second Amendment guarantees, inter alia, the right to possess and use firearms in a home for personal security.

10. An overnight guest has a legitimate expectation of personal security in her host’s home and an overnight guest has the same Second Amendment right to possess and use firearms that the overnight guest has in her own home.

Mrs. Mishaga twice applied for an Illinois FOID card and both times her application was rejected. The rejection was because she did not have an Illinois driver's license or Illinois identification card. As a resident of the state of Ohio she is precluded from having either form of identification. The suit notes that "Illinois law recognizes the right of Illinois residents to keep and bear arms, Ill. Const. Art I, Sec. 22; 430 ICLS 65/1 et seq." Therefore, the suit claims:

The right to travel, guaranteed by the privileges and immunities clauses of Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment, is violated when a State discriminates against citizens of other States where there is no substantial reason for the discrimination beyond the mere fact that they are citizens of other States.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

This will turn out to be the big one because, following Heller and McDonald, it ties into the privileges and immunities clause in a way that cannot be discounted. Figure 4 years to make it to the Supremes, one year on their docket, then it's all over for the antis. Unless, of course, the other side folds sooner as a result of an appellate decision that the Supremes decline to hear.