Lead Article:

MSLF SUES TO ENFORCE 2ND AMENDMENT

Officials Ignore U.S. Supreme Court Rulings!

On behalf of an Ohio woman, an Idaho law student, and a rural Colorado couple, MSLF is seeking to enforce the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) regarding the Second Amendment right “to keep and bear arms.”

Although the Supreme Court made clear the Second Amendment means what it says, applies to Washington, D.C., and applies, via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to the States, federal agencies and state and local governments continue to resist full compliance. For example, following the Supreme Court’s rulings in Heller and McDonald, Washington, D.C. and Chicago respectively adopted burdensome new regulations making hand gun ownership for self-defense all but impossible. MSLF is fighting back.

In Nevada federal district court, MSLF represents a University of Idaho law student in his challenge to a state law banning possession and discharge of a hand gun for self-defense in a state park. Al Baker, an NRA-certified Home Firearms Safety & Basic Pistol Instructor who is licensed in Idaho, Utah, and Oregon to carry a concealed handgun, is also an avid outdoorsmen and camps in northern Nevada, a few hours south of his permanent residence in Boise. One of the camping areas he visits is the Wild Horse State Recreation Area in Elko, Nevada, which provides campsites and other primitive amenities and makes an ideal base camp for hunters, hikers, and other outdoor enthusiasts. Mr. Baker has been advised that, if he brings a firearm for protection, he will be in violation of state law.

The Nevada Division of State Parks prohibits possession of firearms in state parks, with two narrow exceptions—an unloaded firearm inside a vehicle and a concealed handgun carried by a person licensed pursuant to Nevada law—and prohibits the discharge of firearms, with no exception for self-defense. Mr. Baker’s applications for a special use permit were denied.

In Illinois federal district court, MSLF represents an Ohio woman who travels frequently to Illinois to visit and to stay with friends who lawfully possess firearms, but who is barred from lawfully purchasing a firearm or ammunition because she is not an Illinois resident. Ellen Mishaga sued Jonathon E. Monken, the Director of the Illinois Department of State Police and the official responsible for issuing Firearms Owner Identification Cards (FOIDs); FOIDs are required before lawfully purchasing or possessing a firearm or ammunition. On April 30, 2010, and again on June 14, 2010, Mr. Monken denied Ms. Mishaga’s application for a FOID, stating, “No Illinois driver’s license number or state identification number provided.”

Among the requirements for a FOID for anyone over the age of eighteen is an Illinois driver’s license number or Identification Card number. Nonresidents are exempt from most FOID Act restrictions when hunting, target shooting, or if “licensed or registered to possess a firearm in their resident state”; however, a nonresident without a FOID cannot otherwise possess a functional firearm.

In Colorado, MSLF represents a rural couple who drive 25 miles roundtrip through the White River National Forest to the Avon Post Office because mail delivery is not available at their home. When Tab and Debbie Bonidy, both of whom are licensed to carry a handgun and regularly carry a handgun for self-defense from wild animals and criminals, arrive in Avon, however, they are barred by federal regulation from carrying a firearm or parking their vehicle, if it contains a firearm, on Postal Service property.

MSLF advised the Postal Service that, if the regulation is not withdrawn, a challenge to its constitutionality will be filed. MSLF believes the Postal Service’s ban on firearms possession impairs Second Amendment rights because they cannot be exercised when individuals are traveling to, from, or through Postal Service property.