Posted on 04/21/2014 9:13:55 PM PDT by smokingfrog
A 69-year-old Skokie man filed a lawsuit Monday in federal court claiming the state unconstitutionally denied him a permit to carry a concealed gun.
John Berron applied for a concealed carry permit on Jan. 5. He got a letter on March 19 that said that the Illinois Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board received an objection to his application and found he was ineligible for a permit. The Illinois State Police denied his application on that date.
Berron wasn’t told why his permit was denied, said his attorney, J.D. Obenberger.
Court records show he was arrested in 2000 for resisting a police officer and criminal damage to property, both misdemeanors. He was convicted and received court supervision.
In 2006, he was arrested once again for resisting a police officer and criminal damage to property. He was convicted and received conditional discharge for resisting a police officer and was ordered to pay a $200 fine and more than $1,400 in restitution for the property damage, records show.
Berron claims the state violated his right to due process in denying his concealed carry application without allowing him to present his case to the licensing board. He’s asking the court to overturn his denial and give him a concealed carry permit.
“This isn’t a privilege, it’s a constitutional right,” Obenberger said.
Obenberger said the state began issuing concealed carry permits only after a federal appeals court ruled the constitution includes the right to carry handguns outside the home for the purpose of self-defense.
Obenberger called the rules surrounding Illinois’ issuing of concealed carry permits an illegal “smell test.”
“If the police chief doesn’t like you, he can object to you,” Obenberger said.
Berron is suing the state licensing board, the state police and the village of Skokie.
(Excerpt) Read more at politics.suntimes.com ...
I agree with your stance on abortion, i.e., it is a despicable thing and is something that should not be allowed, but what puzzles me is how it is germane to the current thread on gun rights. Please elucidate.
His crimes are misdemeanors and thus he is not a prohibited person.
If having committed a misdemeanor disqualifies someone from exercising a right specifically contained in the Constitution, shouldn't it also disqualify someone from exercising a penumbral right? After all, most folk exercising their right to keep and bear arms never cause the slightest injury to anyone else, while everyone exercising the right to abortion takes the life of another.
Nevertheless, it’s quite a stretch to bring that into the discussion at hand.
I thought his analogy was apt.
I got it. It didn’t seem like a stretch, or out of place. I thought it made perfect sense.
versus
continually assaulting a right that existed even before the Constitution specifically protected it.
The court has held in numerous instances with various rights that any action that tends to infringe on that right cannot be taken, even if the right itself is not actually violated. For example, the 5th amendment right against self incrimination has been held to prohibit firing a government employee who exercises it because it punishes someone who exercises it, even though they are not actually compelled to testify against themselves. The First Amendment right of free speech, now under assault for political speech, has all kinds of previous cases saying that impositions by authorities on the exercise of speech (such as location, content, noise ordinances, time of day) must be examined with strict scrutiny to determine whether there are overriding concerns which can only be addressed by the law in question. Such laws must be carefully crafted to infringe on the right only to the extent needed to meet that concern.
Such strict scrutiny tests have been applied to the non-existent right to abortion. They have not been applied to the right to bear arms. Thus, you have laws that deny 2nd amendment rights to felons, and that restrict firearms in myriad ways unrelated to public safety or some overriding public concern. You would never take away rights under the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6, 7th or 8th Amendments for the types of government interests claimed with respect to the 2nd amendment. For example, you would not take away the 5th amendment from DC because there are so many crimes there, they need to to protect the citizens. Yet that type of thinking goes on with the 2nd amendment.
Hope that helps.
What if a neighbor had a traffic violation? The question is “where does it end”?
Why the hell do ANY of us "need" a permit? What part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear?
I, OTOH, read Defiant's comment as using the thread as an excuse to get in his comments on abortion.
By now, I should have learned that it is never a good idea to get involved with people who seem to have abortion on their mind almost all the time.
Oh, I was just commenting on what was actually posted. I hadn’t realized it was about a personal grudge you’re carrying.
I have no personal grudge against Defiant (this is the first “discussion” I have had with him), and there is no indication in my remarks about such a thing. I just thought that bringing in abortion on a gun rights thread was inappropriate. Over the years I have seen this a lot on FR, i.e., the introduction of remarks on abortion on threads that have no relationship to it. In this case, Defiant did justify to some extent the Constitutional legal basis relationship between abortion and guns, but note that his comment on abortion was the only one on the thread; no one else except the three of you who “amened” it joined in.
Again, I have learned my lesson: don’t tell anyone they have no business introducing abortion on threads unrelated to it. Those who are totally focused on abortion snap back, viciously.
Or -- do you occasionally swap shoulders with that massive chip you're lugging?
I’m just curious. What are you talking about?
The purpose of my post was not to bring in abortion, but to contrast the treatment by liberals of the second amendment with their treatment of the non-existent right to abortion, as a comment on their hypocrisy with respect to the second amendment, which was the subject of this thread.
I have learned something about you today. You are a little bit off. I don't know why; I don't care. Next time you discuss someone you should be man enough to ping them to the post.
Yes. Yes he does. Like the rabid possums I have seen.
I want to know what you think you are talking about. Out of curiosity, I just went through a page of my postings, and not a single one about abortion, except the one on this thread comparing and contrasting liberal views of constitutional rights. It would be nice if you could defend yourself by showing, with reference to specific posts, that I frequently mention abortion in threads that don’t have anything to do with abortion, but you can’t do that, now can you? So, I would appreciate it if you would quit shooting your mouth off about things you are wrong about.
I do apologize for mistaking you for some Freepers who do indeed have abortion on their minds to the exclusion of almost anything else and interrupt threads with comments on this subject, and I mistook you for one of them.
I think I did acknowledge to another Freeper (on your side) that you had valid points in your analysis of abortion and gun rights. I also did not ping you correctly in some of my comments; I know better than that, just forgot.
And I finally must admit also that I must be a bit off to get into shouting matches with turds such as yourself who jump up and down when you feel you’ve been wronged. You had to make three consecutive posts in your anger at me. You, too, have a problem. I sure wouldn’t want to be your neighbor.
With that said, we shall part company. Good day.
You were doing so well until the third paragraph. Just when I thought you were a good guy, you go with the name calling. Now it’s “turd”. What are you, third grade? I’m not the one who initiated an attack. I’m the one who was accused of having abortion on the brain. Not that I would take that as an insult. I think the owner of this web site has abortion on the brain. But it doesn’t result in me hijacking threads to say something unrelated about abortion. And it wasn’t true. What I don’t understand is, why do you have the visceral reaction to those who do feel an overriding need to mention their hatred of abortion? I think they are probably good people who can’t get the horror of it out of their heads.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.