In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-2842 MICHAEL WHITE & ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ILLINOIS STATE POLICE, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 19-cv-2797 — Joan H. Lefkow, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED SEPTEMBER 15, 2021 — DECIDED OCTOBER 6, 2021 ____________________ Before BRENNAN, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. Illinois’s Firearm Concealed Carry Act creates a scheme for licensing individuals to carry con- cealed firearms in public. Michael White applied for a con- cealed carry license on two occasions. Both times the State de- nied his application. White unsuccessfully appealed the first denial in Illinois state court. Following the second denial, White and the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) filed this lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of 2 No. 20-2842 the Concealed Carry Act. The defendants—state entities and officials tasked with enforcing the Act—moved to dismiss the lawsuit. The district court granted the motion with prejudice, and the plaintiffs now appeal. We affirm. ISRA lacks Article III standing, so the district court correctly dismissed its claims. And White’s facial chal- lenges to the Concealed Carry Act are precluded by the judg- ment in his state court lawsuit challenging the denial of his first application. With these claims out of the way, our review on the merits is narrow. We ask only whether the Concealed Carry Act violates the Second Amendment as applied to the State’s denial of White’s second application. We hold that it does not. White has two criminal convictions—including one for unlawful use of a firearm—and multiple gun-related ar- rests. Illinois’s individualized determination that White’s criminal history renders him too dangerous to carry a con- cealed firearm in public survives intermediate scrutiny. Though we affirm, we modify the judgment to reflect that ISRA’s claims are dismissed without prejudice. The district court dismissed ISRA’s claims for lack of jurisdiction, and a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction cannot be with prejudice. II. Background A. The Concealed Carry Act Under the Concealed Carry Act, the Illinois Department of State Police “shall issue” a concealed carry license to an appli- cant who meets several statutory criteria. Namely, the appli- cant must be 21 or older, trained to handle firearms, eligible to possess a firearm under state and federal law, not subject to any pending proceedings that could disqualify him from possessing a firearm, and free of certain types of substance No. 20-2842 3 abuse treatment and criminal convictions within the past five years. 430 ILCS §§ 66/10(a), 66/25. In addition, the applicant must “not pose a danger to himself, herself, or others, or a threat to public safety as determined by the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board.” Id. § 66/10(a)(4). This last requirement takes center stage in this case. To de- termine whether an applicant poses a danger to himself or others or a threat to public safety, the Illinois Concealed Carry Licensing Review …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals