The Firing Line Forums

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

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 5, 2012, 12:39 AM   #1
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,565
IL: Winbigler v. Warren County Housing Authority.

SAF Press release:

For Immediate Release: 4/4/2012

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit against the Warren County, Illinois Housing Authority, seeking an injunction against the WCHA’s ban on personally-owned firearms by residents of government-subsidized housing.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Ronald G. Winbigler, a resident of Costello Terrace in Monmouth. Mr. Winbigler is a physically disabled former police officer who wants to have a handgun in his residence for personal protection. The lawsuit seeks equitable, declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the WCHA ban. It was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Rock Island Division.

“Ron Winbigler faces the same dilemma so many other residents of government-subsidized public housing face,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “He wants a firearm for self-defense, but he risks losing a place to live because of bureaucratic political correctness. As a police officer, he consistently trained and repeatedly qualified in the safe use and handling of firearms, and because of his experience, he understands the threat of crime.”

“People do not lose their Second Amendment rights just because they are of limited means,” added attorney David Sigale, who represents SAF and Winbigler in this action. “Nobody wishes to be in need of financial assistance, but it is an indignity to make the waiver of constitutional rights a condition of government-subsidized housing. We are confident the Courts will hold that those residents have the same right to defend their families and themselves as everyone else.”

“It is astonishing that in Illinois of all places, government entities would continue to interfere with the Second Amendment rights of citizens, after our Supreme Court victory in the McDonald case almost two years ago,” Gottlieb said. “That case nullified Chicago’s handgun ban and extended Second Amendment protections against infringement by state and local governments and their agencies. Mr. Winbigler and people like him deserve the full protection of the Constitution, especially if they live in subsidized public housing.”

The Second Amendment Foundation ( is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
I've already recapped the docket and the complaint. The Docket is listed in Post #5, Item #70 of the Current 2A Cases thread. the Complaint is here:

You can take note that David Sigale is the attorney here. The SAF is apparently trying to do what the NRA couldn't do in their case, Scott v. D.C. Housing Authority (#52). In this case, Stephan Halbrook voluntarily dismissed his case on Feb. 16th, when it came to light that his plaintiff didn't really want a gun.

Another case, Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority et al, (#53) an NRA backed case has gone south and has been awaiting a decision on cross-MSJ's since July 15th, 2011. Here the plaintiff has actually agreed with the reasoning of the defendants actions, during deposition.

This SAF suit appears to be much better than what we have seen, to date.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 17, 2012, 12:31 PM   #2
Junior Member
Join Date: July 19, 2012
Posts: 4
Would they disarm active duty police offirs as well?

Would they disarm active duty police offirs as well?
disarming retired and active duty police officers directly violates LEOSA federal law however they are also violating state and federal gun ownership law by denying him the right to bear arms which is made worse because it is government funded. What would stop them from disarming an employed police officer.
borgranta is offline  
Old September 17, 2012, 05:23 PM   #3
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 9,971
Originally Posted by borgranta
disarming retired and active duty police officers directly violates LEOSA federal law
He is not seeking to "bear" arms, he is seeking to "keep" arms in his home. There is no question in my mind that his rights are being violated, but the LEOSA has nothing to do with a retired officer keeping a firearm in his/her home.
Aguila Blanca is offline  

david sigale , illinois , saf , second amendment

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 07:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.04591 seconds with 7 queries