• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Saf files for preliminary injunction against illinois carry ban

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
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/items/gov.uscourts.ilcd.52015

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:

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
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.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
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:

M-Taliesin

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,504
Location
Aurora, Colorado
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
 

jayspapa

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
313
Location
South end of the state, Illinois, USA
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:

M-Taliesin

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,504
Location
Aurora, Colorado
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
 

jayspapa

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
313
Location
South end of the state, Illinois, USA
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.
 

M-Taliesin

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,504
Location
Aurora, Colorado
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
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
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.
 
Top