The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 14, 2011, 09:20 AM   #1
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)

Quote:
NRA Files Suit Against Unconstitutional Ban on Carrying Firearms for Self-Defense in Illinois


Friday, May 13, 2011



Fairfax, Va. -- The National Rifle Association is funding and supporting a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of Illinois’ complete and total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home. The case, filed today in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, is Shepard v. Madigan. The lead plaintiff is church treasurer Mary Shepard; joining her is the Illinois State Rifle Association, the NRA’s state affiliate.
MUch more detail here: http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/News....aspx?ID=15127
*******************
I don't think the NRA could have found a better plaintiff if they had tried! Church treasurer attacked while at Church, 2 CCW permits from other states, the attacker a thug twice as big.

Last edited by Al Norris; May 14, 2011 at 10:11 AM. Reason: title change
Don H is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 10:10 AM   #2
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,322
Actually, there were 2 lawsuits filed. The first one (to be reported) was by the SAF in the Central District of IL. The NRA lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of IL.

This means that the cases cannot be consolidated in any manner. Illinois will have to defend against 2 almost identical lawsuits.

We'll know more on how the cases are shaping up, as soon as they get posted to PACER. The content of that SAF suit is already online - see my post last night in the main 2A Current Cases thread. As I stated in that post, if someone finds the NRA's complaint online, please post the link.

Don? I'm retitling your thread to reflect both lawsuits, as it would be redundant to have two separate threads on essentially the same subject. I hope you don't mind.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 10:15 AM   #3
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Good move on the consolidation, Al. Hopefully it'll keep the discussion in one thread.
Don H is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 01:28 PM   #4
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,202
I don't know anything more than what's in the article, but from what I see, Don's right. As far as plaintiff's go, it's really hard to beat the "CCL-holding-little-old-lady-church-treasurer."
Spats McGee is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 04:41 PM   #5
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
Hell a state representative(She happened to be the classic "little old lady") was ROBBED of 5 dollars at gunpoint in East St. Louis a couple of years ago. I am really starting to think I just might see conceal carry in Illinois in my lifetime.
Patriot86 is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 05:05 PM   #6
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 840
I would not bet on it.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is online now  
Old May 15, 2011, 05:09 AM   #7
Kreyzhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 11,518
Quote:
As far as plaintiff's go, it's really hard to beat the "CCL-holding-little-old-lady-church-treasurer."
I too thought they had the perfect plaintiff.....

Not that it's related, but I do think it is funny that Daly has requested armed bodyguards once he leaves office.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson
Kreyzhorse is offline  
Old May 15, 2011, 11:04 AM   #8
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,945
While I think it's a shame that the citizens of IL have to resort to the judicial system in order to enjoy the same rights that the rest of the country was able to secure through the legislative system, it really doesn't suprise me much. As I said in another thread not long ago, Chicago is going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of their Draconian ways and, because Chicago has such a stranglehold on both the state legislature and the governor's mansion, the judicial system is about the only option at this point.

On a side note, I do find it almost comical that these lawsuits were filed so soon after a RTC bill was narrowly defeated in the IL legislature. It makes one wonder if the plaintiffs were just waiting to see how things panned out. Really though, this might wind up being better than IL passing a RTC bill. A state law would effect only IL while a SCOTUS decision will effect the rest of the country (I'm pretty confident that SCOTUS will rule our way on this one).
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old May 15, 2011, 03:16 PM   #9
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,322
Remembering that we have yet to read the NRA complaint, the SAF complaint is not asking to do anything other than admit that the right to carry a functional firearm, outside the home, is a fundamental right that cannot be completely banned:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moore v. Madigan
Plaintiffs do not seek to establish how the State of Illinois should regulate the carry of handguns in public. For example, Plaintiffs do not seek to establish that the State should enact a licensing program, or any particular licensing program, nor do Plaintiffs contend that the State should in some other manner amend its laws.

Rather, Plaintiffs seek to establish that the recognition and incorporation of the Second Amendment – the right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation – renders the State’s present regulatory choice unconstitutional. Whatever the contours of a constitutional scheme might be, the Second Amendment renders a ban on carrying guns impermissible.
Note: The RECAPped complaint and the docket are now visible. Docket is here. Complaint is here. I hope to have the NRA case shortly.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 15, 2011, 06:44 PM   #10
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
At this point I would rather just wait and see if we can get a CCW law passed, rather than use the courts to try to accomplish it.

It's kind of scary, what if the courts find the other way?

I guess we'll see...
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old May 15, 2011, 09:26 PM   #11
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 372
Quote:
It's kind of scary, what if the courts find the other way?
*think happy thoughts think happy thoughts think happy thoughts*

I'd rather get the deed done in Springfield as well. I'm gonna say most of the people here on the forum who have never lived in Illinois have no clue how bad Cook County and Chicago is. It's BAAAAAAAAAD.
Davey is offline  
Old July 7, 2011, 04:33 PM   #12
ming
Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2009
Posts: 65
Saf files for preliminary injunction against illinois carry ban

The following is from the IllinoisCarry site:

Capitalizing on its federal appeals court victory Wednesday in Ezell v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment Foundation today moved for a preliminary injunction against the State of Illinois to prevent further enforcement of that state’s prohibitions on firearms carry in public by law-abiding citizens.

The motion was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Springfield. Joining SAF in this motion are Illinois Carry and four private citizens, Michael Moore, Charles Hooks, Peggy Fechter and Jon Maier. The underlying case is known as Moore v. Madigan.

Illinois is the only state in the nation with such prohibitions. The state neither allows open carry or concealed carry, which runs afoul of recent U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment rulings, including last year’s landmark ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, another SAF case. SAF was represented in McDonald and Ezell by attorney Alan Gura, who noted after yesterday’s appeals court win – forcing a temporary injunction against the city’s ban on gun ranges that the city immediately changed after the decision was announced – that “Even Chicago politicians must respect the people’s fundamental civil rights…Gun rights are coming to Chicago. The only question is how much the city’s intransigence will cost taxpayers along the way.”

“Now that the Seventh Circuit has recognized that the deprivation of the right of armed self-defense is an inherently irreparable injury, it is clear that Illinois’ law-abiding gun owners are entitled to a protective injunction,” said attorney David Jensen of New York, who, along with Glen Ellyn, IL attorney David Sigale, is representing SAF and the other plaintiffs.

“Yesterday’s win was a wake-up call to Chicago,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Today’s motion is a signal to the Illinois Legislature that the state’s total ban on carrying of firearms for personal protection is counter to both Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment, and yesterday’s ruling by the Seventh Circuit appeals panel that shredded Chicago’s gun ordinance. Our victory Wednesday and today’s motion are key components of SAF’s overall mission to win back firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.”

Motion is here:
http://ia600603.us.archive.org/14/it...52015.13.0.pdf

Memo Supporting Motion is here:
http://ia600603.us.archive.org/14/it...52015.14.0.pdf

Last edited by ming; July 7, 2011 at 04:48 PM.
ming is offline  
Old July 7, 2011, 04:58 PM   #13
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
Pigs just may fly and sooner than I as someone born and raised in Illinois could have ever dreamed of.
Patriot86 is offline  
Old July 7, 2011, 06:23 PM   #14
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,854
We can hope.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old July 7, 2011, 07:46 PM   #15
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,322
Because I originally consolidated the threads for both Moore and Sheppard, I think we'll keep them that way. The reasoning was that the cases were essentially the same, even though in separate federal districts and by separate entities (Moore=SAF/Sheppard=NRA). Therefore, I'm merging this thread with the original thread.

On topic with additional information:

Building upon its success in Ezell, the SAF attorney David Jenson is not only making the motion for a preliminary injunction, but using FRCP 65(a)(2), he is making the motion to “advance the trial on the merits and consolidate it with the [preliminary injunction] hearing.” This would result in a permanent injunction against the State of Illinois.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 7, 2011, 08:05 PM   #16
GoOfY-FoOt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 1, 2011
Location: West Central Florida
Posts: 463
Al...Could it be that, in your quote from the complaint for Moore v. Madigan, the plaintiffs may well be looking for constitutional carry, without spelling it out? Since they didn't specify what exact relief they wanted from the state, only what they didn't want?
__________________
BILL @ Strongside Arms, Inc. - 1479 W. C-48 Bushnell, FL 33513 352-568-0017
--------------------------------------------------
“Why worry when you can pray? He [God] is the Whole, you are a part. Coordinate your abilities with the Whole.” ~Edgar Cayce~

Last edited by GoOfY-FoOt; July 7, 2011 at 09:37 PM.
GoOfY-FoOt is offline  
Old July 7, 2011, 09:35 PM   #17
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
I get the same impression that they are looking for a recognized right to carry.
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old July 7, 2011, 10:03 PM   #18
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,322
BGutzman has it correct.

Because of the manner in which the Ezell appeals opinion was rendered, they are looking for judicial recognition of the right to carry. Any specific manner of carry is not at issue, only that it is part and parcel of the core right to self defense, as laid out in Heller.

By using the irreparable harm argument (as used in Ezell), they have just bypassed the next 6 to 9 months of briefs and counter-briefs (MTD, MSJ's and such).

Even if they lose at district (on the motion for injunction), they will be fast-tracked at the 7th Circuit.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 9, 2011, 12:04 AM   #19
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,322
Everyone saw this coming, yes?

In Shepard v. Madigan (NRA - The other IL carry case), a motion for a preliminary injunction was filed today. Read it here.

It is essentially the same as the one we read in Moore v. Madigan. There are minor differences, to be sure.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 9, 2011, 12:39 AM   #20
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,983
Whew! The Shepard v. Madigan brief is quite the good read.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old July 13, 2011, 07:29 PM   #21
Dan F
Member
 
Join Date: July 13, 2011
Location: MD *gah*
Posts: 54
Hi All!

Although this is my first post on TFL, since I bought my first handguns last summer this has become a regular stop. In particular the L&CR forum keeps me coming back (I live in Maryland... connect the dots).

I confess to a growing sense of enthusiasm about the unfolding story in Illinois, but today something occurred to me. Even given that the Permanent Injunction is granted... what do you all think Illinois' response will be?

Wanna bet they adopt a MD or NJ "May Issue" scheme, the more restrictive the better (a la Chicago)?

Gah... I hate politicians.

Glad to finally join the fray...
Dan F is offline  
Old July 13, 2011, 10:03 PM   #22
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
That was a good read! What will be interesting to see is if the state is far sighted enough to understand the potential consequences of this case.

I am not a lawyer and I am certainly an idealist concerning the 2A but it seems to me if this went to SCOTUS eventually we could see a right to carry with few restrictions.

I read this document and couldnt help but humming "O say can you see."
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old July 14, 2011, 02:10 AM   #23
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 372
Quote:
H...Even given that the Permanent Injunction is granted... what do you all think Illinois' response will be?

Wanna bet they adopt a MD or NJ "May Issue" scheme, the more restrictive the better (a la Chicago)?
The powers that be working on our side here in IL aren't really thinking about may issue. With all of the wins in the recent years we have a lot of steam pushing us forward.

There is already a may issue bill, HB3794. The bill is a logistical nightmare that will require people to violate their own fifth amendment right against self incrimination. The bill sucks and I emailed the three sponsors of it telling them so, in polite terms. Rep. Mitchell, the lead sponsor, agrees that HB148 is far more desirable. He also stated that the only reason he came up with HB3794 was to appease some constituents who were just fed up with where we are now.

They along with the rest of us are waiting to see what comes of the other current cases, primarily Shepard vs. Madigan.

The NRA doesn't support the may issue bill at all. There is no reason that any person in IL that wants RTC should think that may issue is needed.
Davey is offline  
Old July 14, 2011, 09:26 AM   #24
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,322
The major problem with all the other cases, is that the lower courts are all playing word games with Heller. Scalia didn't say that the only place you can carry is in the home. That was the very narrow holding in a specific circumstance. Yet, that is what the lower courts are latching onto, in order to find that public carry is outside the core of the right.

Nominally, it is going to take the SCOTUS to lay it out: The core of the right is to keep and bear arms, in case of confrontation, for self defense. Keep means possess. Bear means to carry, both in the home and in the public, barring "sensitive places" (which is another whole string of cases).

This is why Williams and Masciandaro are very important cases. They are both before the Court. If one or both are granted cert, then this question will be answered.

But there is some hope, even if cert is denied in those cases. The terms laid out in the Ezell opinion, would mean that the district courts in the 7th Circuit (all of IL), will have no choice but to do the historical groundwork. That approach will not leave the district courts much room to wiggle around the basic facts, as laid out in Heller and Ezell.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 14, 2011, 10:36 AM   #25
mrray13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2008
Location: deep south illinois
Posts: 730
This happened in the town in which I live. To say it was shocking is an understatement. Anna is very much like a Mayberry, and is very pro-gun, albeit mostly sporting/hunting, in spite of being very Democratic.

Hopefully, this tragedy can result in what is Constitutionally a right, and Illinois having to eat a bit of crow on it's draconian ways up north.

I found this post at illinoiscarry.com interesting,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidartha
As far as Constitutional Carry and License To Carry all one has to do is read the lawsuits filed.

Lets pretend for a moment that the ISRA and the SAF are not enemies. That in order to achieve their shared goal they may have talked to each other about their respective lawsuits. And that perhaps they actually coordinated their efforts and have a shared, mutually beneficial strategy.

That strategy might entail presenting different arguments to different courts in different federal districts. It might be that there are lawsuits already in the federal court system whose ruling might affect one argument more than it might another. They(the ISRA and SAF) might have even considered that by presenting two different arguments to the SCOTUS they allow the SCOTUS to essentially choose whether it wants to issue a broad or a narrow ruling thus gaining a victory while still hedging their bets.

Could any part of that be the reasoning behind different lawsuits? Not being a lawyer, I'm curious as to if this line of thinking might be more accurate then one would initially think. And if it is, is it as smart as one would think it appears to be?

In short, I hope Illinois RTC gets passed, ASAP. While I'm currently LEO, my wife can only "transport" her firearm, legally, and practice "7 seconds to safety". It's better then nothing, but I'd rather her be able to do some work as immediately as possible, without the extras steps.

Docket for Shepard vs Madigan

Last edited by mrray13; July 14, 2011 at 10:45 AM.
mrray13 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.24929 seconds with 8 queries