Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)

D

Don H

New member
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.
Click to expand...

MUch more detail here: http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.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 a moderator:
A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
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.
 
S

Spats McGee

Administrator
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."
 
P

Patriot86

New member
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.
 
K

Kreyzhorse

New member
As far as plaintiff's go, it's really hard to beat the "CCL-holding-little-old-lady-church-treasurer."
Click to expand...

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.
 
W

Webleymkv

New member
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).
 
A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
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:
Moore v. Madigan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Note: The RECAPped complaint and the docket are now visible. Docket is here. Complaint is here. I hope to have the NRA case shortly.
 
C

C0untZer0

Moderator
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...
 
D

Davey

New member
It's kind of scary, what if the courts find the other way?
Click to expand...

*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.
 
M

ming

New member
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/items/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.13.0.pdf

Memo Supporting Motion is here:
http://ia600603.us.archive.org/14/items/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015.14.0.pdf
 
Last edited:
A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
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.
 
G

GoOfY-FoOt

New member
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?
 
Last edited:
A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
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.
 
A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top