Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Saf files for preliminary injunction against illinois carry ban

  1. #1
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Saf files for preliminary injunction against illinois carry ban

    SAF FILES FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST ILLINOIS CARRY BAN
    For Immediate Release: 7/7/2011

    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...rts.ilcd.52015

    Memo Supporting Motion is here: http://ia600603.us.archive.org/14/it...52015.14.0.pdf
    Last edited by lockman; 07-08-2011 at 08:52 PM. Reason: attempt to fix links

  2. #2
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202

    Hearing was today.

    Decision probably will be announced next week.

    Based on courtroom observers the State arguments are extremely weak and are grasping at straws. One of the states arguments is basically if you strike down this law as unconstitutional, we would like to continue to enforce it because we do not currently have an alternative. Will the court say ok it is unconstitutional but you can continue to violate your citizens fundamental rights until your legislature comes up with a constitutional law to replace it? I think not, but I bet the court rules in favor of Chicago and kicks the can down the road for the appellate court to run with.

  3. #3
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    This is an interesting case. These establishment judges won't want to be accused of being "dodge city" enablers by their establishment dinner party guests, so no OC. They will kick the can down the road, but eventually this could end in some type of "may issue" or even "shall issue" permit system that allows CC only. Because of Chicago, this all that Illinois can probably ever hope for.
    Last edited by 77zach; 08-16-2011 at 12:46 PM.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  4. #4
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Howdy Folks!
    I grew up in Illinois. I have a home in Illinois. I'd like to visit the old homestead one of these days.
    However, I am reluctant to visit the Prairie State where I am denied my right to bear arms.
    Even my permit wouldn't be honored there, let alone free open carry.
    I am constantly thankful that I moved to Colorado and make my home here now.

    But there is that whole "all my family is there" sort of problem.

    I am wondering whether there is any activism going on in Illinois.
    Is anybody taking to the streets to make noise in Illinois?
    Are gun owners making waves among those fields of grain?

    Is anyone making an issue of "It's a Constitutional thing"

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South end of the state, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    314
    Yes we are making noise but when you are fighting the mob of Chicago with arms that reach all the way to Springfield ... well here we are , still trying.

    As has been said we came within 6 votes this spring and that was with the sheriffs association and the chief of police association in support of us. We are hoping for a ruling in our favor for an injunction of the UUW / AUUW laws ( unlawful use of weapons / aggravated unlawful use of weapons ) .

    There are just to many anti-gun Dem. reps. in Chicago area.
    Last edited by jayspapa; 08-18-2011 at 12:40 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Quote Originally Posted by jayspapa View Post
    There are just to many anti-gun Dem. reps. in Chicago area.
    Howdy Amigo!
    I don't believe it is a matter of political affiliation so much as ideological stance of the individual who identifies himself with a particular party.
    In case that sounded ambiguous, let me expand on that for a moment.

    Doing research, shortly after I learned about OC in Colorado, I discovered that among gun owners, 55% said they were Republicans. Democrats came in at 33% of all those gun owners who claimed a specific political affiliation. I'm one of them gun totin' democrats myself. Wasn't always that way however. I used to be ambivilant on the subject of guns. That particular luxury evaporated one summer night when I found myself staring down the muzzle of a semiauto pistol pointed at my head during a robbery. Funny how a little thing like that can alter one's paradigm!

    Anyhow, I've learned there are a heap of Democrats who are avid gun rights folks. In fact, among Colorado sheriff's issuing CCW permits, 2 of the top 5 are Democrats. Our own sheriff is right near the very top in the number of CCW permits he authorizes. Another I know about wants to be the one who writes up the most permits of any sheriff in Colorado. He wants to be number one in the number of permits granted. I think our sheriffs know that each civilian not only has the right to self defense, but a real need to have that capability.

    But having growed up in Illinois, I know the dems there ain't the same sort of dems we have around here. Yes, we still have that whole Denver issue, where they don't permit OC without a permit. (was that redundant?). Even with a permit, they don't hanker to see folks OC'ing. The two most troublesome towns are Denver and Boulder, where the political party in strong control are Democrats.

    That being said, many of us who lean to the Democratic party are working to change the essence of the platform and transform the Democratic party into one that is not just tolerant of gun rights, but avid supporters of gun rights. Maybe we need to elect more Democrats who view things as I do. And maybe that's what you folks in Illinois might work at.

    It isn't terribly hard to become precinct committee persons. Here it only takes like 10 signatures from others in the party. The precinct committee folks vote on candidates for public office. Get maybe a half dozen gun rights advocates to become precinct committee people, and only vote for those candidates who are pro-gun. If that's what the Democratic party ends up with as a candidate for public office, and gun owners have worked within the system to promote only pro-gun candidates, they have good odds of some getting elected. The more that get elected, the more easily moved to promote gun rights legislation.

    Something to think about before the next batch of candidates is put forward by both the Democratic party and the Republicans too! By putting special attention into those districts where specific politicians turned their thumb down on pro-gun legislation, the outcome of the election can be changed favorably in our direction, and legislation has a chance to pass. But it takes a bit of work getting this all done.

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South end of the state, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    314
    Quote Originally Posted by M-Taliesin View Post
    Howdy Amigo!
    I don't believe it is a matter of political affiliation so much as ideological stance of the individual who identifies himself with a particular party.
    In case that sounded ambiguous, let me expand on that for a moment.

    Doing research, shortly after I learned about OC in Colorado, I discovered that among gun owners, 55% said they were Republicans. Democrats came in at 33% of all those gun owners who claimed a specific political affiliation. I'm one of them gun totin' democrats myself. Wasn't always that way however. I used to be ambivilant on the subject of guns. That particular luxury evaporated one summer night when I found myself staring down the muzzle of a semiauto pistol pointed at my head during a robbery. Funny how a little thing like that can alter one's paradigm!

    Anyhow, I've learned there are a heap of Democrats who are avid gun rights folks. In fact, among Colorado sheriff's issuing CCW permits, 2 of the top 5 are Democrats. Our own sheriff is right near the very top in the number of CCW permits he authorizes. Another I know about wants to be the one who writes up the most permits of any sheriff in Colorado. He wants to be number one in the number of permits granted. I think our sheriffs know that each civilian not only has the right to self defense, but a real need to have that capability.

    But having growed up in Illinois, I know the dems there ain't the same sort of dems we have around here. Yes, we still have that whole Denver issue, where they don't permit OC without a permit. (was that redundant?). Even with a permit, they don't hanker to see folks OC'ing. The two most troublesome towns are Denver and Boulder, where the political party in strong control are Democrats.

    That being said, many of us who lean to the Democratic party are working to change the essence of the platform and transform the Democratic party into one that is not just tolerant of gun rights, but avid supporters of gun rights. Maybe we need to elect more Democrats who view things as I do. And maybe that's what you folks in Illinois might work at.

    It isn't terribly hard to become precinct committee persons. Here it only takes like 10 signatures from others in the party. The precinct committee folks vote on candidates for public office. Get maybe a half dozen gun rights advocates to become precinct committee people, and only vote for those candidates who are pro-gun. If that's what the Democratic party ends up with as a candidate for public office, and gun owners have worked within the system to promote only pro-gun candidates, they have good odds of some getting elected. The more that get elected, the more easily moved to promote gun rights legislation.

    Something to think about before the next batch of candidates is put forward by both the Democratic party and the Republicans too! By putting special attention into those districts where specific politicians turned their thumb down on pro-gun legislation, the outcome of the election can be changed favorably in our direction, and legislation has a chance to pass. But it takes a bit of work getting this all done.

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin
    LOL....Please pay attention to the specific area I mentioned concerning the anti gun Dems. If you research the HB148 carry bill , you would see it was introduced by a Southern Illinois Dem.

    Also when the vote was taken on HB148 , there were 3 Northern Republicans that voted NO which caused 3 N. ILL. Dems to change their vote from YES to NO. Thus the reason we lost by 6 votes.

  8. #8
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504
    Quote Originally Posted by jayspapa View Post
    LOL....Please pay attention to the specific area I mentioned concerning the anti gun Dems. If you research the HB148 carry bill , you would see it was introduced by a Southern Illinois Dem.

    Also when the vote was taken on HB148 , there were 3 Northern Republicans that voted NO which caused 3 N. ILL. Dems to change their vote from YES to NO. Thus the reason we lost by 6 votes.
    Howdy Pard!
    Yes, I noticed that, which somehow seemed counterintuitive at face value.
    Regardless of that, I believe that holding their feet to the electoral fire might have a positive impact.

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin

  9. #9
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    245
    Any updates on this?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southern Illinois, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    364
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkshadow62988 View Post
    Any updates on this?
    I don't know about the SAF lawsuit but the judge in the Shepard Vs. Madigan (being heard in Benton Illinois) should be making a ruling soon, the state made a new motion recently to delay things.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by junglebob View Post
    I don't know about the SAF lawsuit but the judge in the Shepard Vs. Madigan (being heard in Benton Illinois) should be making a ruling soon, the state made a new motion recently to delay things.
    I see a hole in the pleadings in Shepard. She claims that illinois CC laws did not allow her to protect herself but she could have been carrying legally at the time of the attack as she was on private property. So she could have transported the gun to the private property and then carried.

  12. #12
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    You must have permission by the property owner to do so. We are all aware of the burdens the state places in our path to discourage armed self-defense. Hopefully the courts will recognize them as unreasonable restrictions on a fundamental right.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran ComradeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Maple Hill, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    430
    It's still a good idea to see possible perceived weaknesses in one's argument.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •