New suit: Moore v. Madigan - Carry in Illinois

[jar]

SAF just announced another lawsuit, this one challenging the total ban on carry of handguns for self defense in Illinois. This comes hot on the heels of the recent failure of a concealed carry bill in the IL legislature.

SAF and the two individual plaintiffs are represented by David Jensen and David Sigale. Sigale was the local counsel on McDonald.

 

[terraformer]

This comes hot on the heels of the recent failure of a concealed carry bill in the IL legislature.

This is very relevant to all legislatures out there dragging their feet. They will be given a chance. If they fail to capitalize on it, this is the result.

 

[jar]

This is very relevant to all legislatures out there dragging their feet. They will be given a chance. If they fail to capitalize on it, this is the result.

Yup. This isn't the first one. The NYC permit fees suit was similar. Bloomberg even saw the writing on the wall there, but he couldn't convince the city council.

 

[M1911]

This could get really interesting. If it makes it up to SCOTUS, I sure hope it does before Barry gets a chance to nominate another judge.

 

[jar]

This could get really interesting. If it makes it up to SCOTUS, I sure hope it does before Barry gets a chance to nominate another judge.

This case is pretty far behind the others. Williams v Maryland is the one to watch at the moment. The cert petition was filed recently and it's scheduled for conference next Thurs. The next step is for SCOTUS to ask MD to respond to the cert petition, which only takes one justice. If that happens, MD will have 60 days to respond. There will likely be a cert decision early in the next term.

 

[Kevlar]

SAF Adds Plaintiffs In Illinois Firearms Law Challenge...

The Second Amendment Foundation announced this morning that it has filed an amended complaint in federal district court in Illinois, challenging the state's statutory prohibitions on the carrying of handguns for personal protection.

Joining SAF in this amended complaint are Illinois Carry, a volunteer organization founded to educate the public about Illinois gun laws, and two more private citizens, Peggy Fechter of Carmi, and Jon Maier, a resident of Bloomington. Michael Moore of Champaign and Charles Hooks of Percy remain active plaintiffs.

Defendants in the lawsuit are Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and State Police Superintendent Hiram Grau. SAF is represented by attorneys David Jensen of New York and David Sigale of Glen Ellyn. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Springfield.

The lawsuit alleges that Illinois statutes that completely ban the carrying of handguns for self-defense deprive the plaintiffs of civil rights under color of law, making them "inconsistent with the Second Amendment."

SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb welcomed the additional plaintiffs, noting, "After the lawsuit was filed on Tuesday, we were overwhelmed by requests to participate. We want to assure everyone who contacted us that they do not need to be actual plaintiffs in order to benefit from a victory.....

http://www.virtualpressoffice.com/p...eToDisableHistory=Y&menuName=News&sId=&sInfo=

 

[Kevlar]

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.”

http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=365

 

[bubajoe]

NRA who? My future donations are going to the SAF. These guys are doing great work.

 

[codenamepaul]

NRA who? My future donations are going to the SAF. These guys are doing great work.

Good to see you on board. Should have happened long ago. The NRA was long opposed to Heller, and are still trying to jump on the bandwagon about it. I have come to believe that the NRA is no longer interested in protecting rights as much as protecting its future.

 

[JRyan]

NRA who? My future donations are going to the SAF. These guys are doing great work.

Yeah, I'm agreeing with you here.

 

[center442]

NRA who? My future donations are going to the SAF. These guys are doing great work.

Good to see you on board. Should have happened long ago. The NRA was long opposed to Heller, and are still trying to jump on the bandwagon about it. I have come to believe that the NRA is no longer interested in protecting rights as much as protecting its future.

I've reached the same conclusion regarding the NRA. All of these groups are like watchdogs in that they all bark. The difference is some only bark while others will bite. My financial support is now going to the Rottweilers.

Also, if you're a MA [STRIKE]inmate[/STRIKE] resident, don't forget GOAL and COMM2A.

 

[Kevlar]

NRA Files Their Own Motion...

Illinois’s ban on carrying firearms outside the home or business came under attack on a new front Friday. The National Rifle Association asked a federal judge in Southern Illinois to immediately declare it unconstitutional.

The Virginia-based NRA’s move came one day after a nearly identical request was filed by the Bellevue, Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation. The gun lobby has painted a legal bull’s-eye on Illinois, now that it is the only state in America to prohibit concealed carry.

Gun rights advocates have failed repeatedly to persuade the Illinois General Assembly to remove the restrictions. They’ve now turned to the courts. FOX Chicago News has counted at least 7 pending lawsuits filed by various arms of the gun lobby, seeking not only to legalize the concealed carrying of handguns, but also to require the City of Chicago to allow residents to register semi-automatic weapons, what critics call assault weapons.

Another goal: force Chicago to grant gun permits to persons with convictions for weapons offenses and/or drunk driving, as long as the convictions were misdemeanors. The city currently rejects such applicants.....

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/new...unconstitutional-legal-lawsuit-court-20110708

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is filing a motion for an injunction asking the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to immediately strike down Illinois’ complete and total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home or place of business.

This week, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that any violation of the Second Amendment constitutes irreparable harm – a factor needed to receive a preliminary injunction on NRA’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Illinois statute prohibiting carriage.

The NRA filed a lawsuit, Shepard v. Madigan, on May 13 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The lead plaintiff is church treasurer Mary Shepard; joining her is the Illinois State Rifle Association, the NRA’s state affiliate.

Because Illinois statutes prohibit carrying handguns, they infringe on the right of the people, including Mrs. Shepard, members of the ISRA and other law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and are thus null and void.

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=15306

 

[MA_Shooter]

The NRA should be leading the way, not following the pack.

Glad I sent money to SAF and unfortunate that my club requires NRA membership.

 

[BillB]

http://www.newsmax.com/US/ConcealedCarry-Wisconsin/2011/07/09/id/403027?s=al&promo_code=C95C-1

Illinois alone?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Bump!

Interview with the lead plaintiff.

 

[joeendris]

Best part? Lead plaintiff was a corrections officer, but since retiring, his gun rights poof...went away. He didn't like that, I wouldn't either. Good for him.

 

[yanici]

Looks good. Illinois should fall soon. This is just blatant.

 

[Dench]

This case is pretty far behind the others. Williams v Maryland is the one to watch at the moment. The cert petition was filed recently and it's scheduled for conference next Thurs. The next step is for SCOTUS to ask MD to respond to the cert petition, which only takes one justice. If that happens, MD will have 60 days to respond. There will likely be a cert decision early in the next term.

Jeff, can you elaborate or maybe make a new thread about Williams v Maryland and whats its status?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

They're mentioned here and here.

The two cases are Williams on appeal from the MD Court of Appeals and Masciandaro on appeal from the 4th Circuit. Both of these cases are mallum prohibitum criminal cases and I think they're scheduled for conference in September. If either or both of them are granted cert, they'll be heard next term and in a little less than 12 months from now SCOTUS will have issued an opinion on right to carry.

Both these cases are very good. If they're granted cert, ALL of the other right-to-carry cases including Hightower will be stayed. Everything comes to a stop until SCOTUS weights in.

Williams is a guy in MD who bought a gun and took it to his girlfriend's house. At some point he decided to take it home, put it in his backpack and headed to the bus stop. He was arrested, charged and convicted for unlawfully carrying a gun. He can possess it in his home, take it to the range, and take it to a gun shop, but he can't take it to his girlfriend's home. There have been some interesting things come out of MD cases:

*The MD AG admitting (in Woollard) that hardly anyone will qualify for a carry permit and that they don't want most people to.
*The AG stating that Baltimore and much of PG county are so dangerous and crime ridden that people can't be trusted with guns.
*The MD Court of Appeals (their supreme court) stating that: if the US Supreme Court means the 2nd amendment extends to carrying guns they will "have to say so more plainly".

It goes on.

The video of Williams before the MD Court of Appeals hilarious. The defendant's attorney was in the can when his case was called.
http://www.courts.state.md.us/coappeals/media/2010/coa20101007case16.wmv

 

[Dench]

So what are the odds of those going to the supreme court? and when?

i'm sorry i ask so much, but i need legal things explained to me like im 5 years old.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I think there's a very high probability that one or both of these cases will be heard by the Supreme Court next term.

 

[Dench]

are there any gun cases going through this term?

 

[jar]

The supreme court is currently on summer break. They'll be back in Sept. Williams got in just before the summer break with its initial petition for cert. The supremes cared enough to ask Maryland to respond, and this response is in. Masciandaro went in after the break started, so no response has been requested yet. Both cases are scheduled for conference in September when the justices are back. Williams could be accepted at that conference, Masciandaro will probably have a response requested. I think it's pretty likely that one or both of these cases will be heard. If so, the briefs will start rolling in, leading to an argument probably in the feb-march time frame, and a decision in June.

In short, we'll probably have a supreme court ruling on 2A outside the home in June 2012. I'm currently working on an article that will explain the current state of 2A litigation in simple terms.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

This last SCOTUS term was kind of a 1st amendment term. 2A will likely be back on the agenda next term.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

On to the 7th Circuit

'Our side' lost this one in district court. [sad2] Yet another RTC case goes to federal appeals.

Link

 

[FreeWillie]

They may have lost in district court but they gained a new Defender (check my sig) and a monthly donation. All is not lost (yet).

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

They may have lost in district court but they gained a new Defender (check my sig) and a monthly donation. All is not lost (yet).

Money well spent. I'm not too concerned what happens in the district courts. They're just tollbooth on the way to a court that can actual make binding decisions. 2012 is the year of the appellate courts and decisions that will actually matter and get us somewhere.

 

[jar]

Oral arguments in this case (consolidated with the substantially similar NRA case) were held today. Audio is available here: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=12-1269_001.mp3

I think this one is most likely a solid win for our side. The judges grilled Gura pretty hard, but it was all about specific limitations (carry in schools and bars for example) once a right to bear in public is established. The attorney for the NRA wasn't anything special, but he didn't blunder anything too badly either. The judges, especially Posner and Williams, but Flaum jumped in a little, absolutely savaged the AAG for IL. Posner literally called him an idiot. One of the male judges, when the AAG mentioned the legislature weighing some restriction or other, asked something like, "Post Heller, can we even have that conversation?"

I can't wait to read the decision. It'll probably take about 3 months to come out.

 

[jefftk]

I think this one is most likely a solid win for our side. The judges grilled Gura pretty hard, but it was all about specific limitations (carry in schools and bars for example) once a right to bear in public is established.

They also seemed quite concerned on whether banning concealed carry (and leaving open carry legal) would be a valid limitation. It seemed to me that both Gura and the NRA lawyer implied that it may be a valid limitation, although they did a decent job of dancing around the issue.