NRA files Suit in Illinois on Right to Carry

[krucam]

This was needed to cover the 2nd of 2 suits filed on Friday the 13th. SAF came out first but the NRA was shortly behind this day.

Both came out as a result of a failure in the Illinois legislature to pass a Right to Carry bill. They needed 71 votes IIRC and came up with 69. It was close, but having the Legislature fail and given the strong resistance from Cook Cty (Chicago), the die was cast. Sue them...

The SAF Suit is Moore v. Madigan. The Moore suit (SAF sponsored) thread is: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=57800

This, the NRA case, is Shepard v. Madigan:
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/News....aspx?ID=15127

I want to make sure there is a second thread for this second suit. The 2 Wisconsin Carry cases and the 2 D'Cruz (now Jennings) cases in TX have highlighted the need for keeping these cases separate.

[krucam]

John at 'No Lawyers, Only Guns & Money' has a great synopsis of Ms. Shepard, the lead plaintiff in this suit:

She is an absolutely wonderul Plaintiff. I think the NRA is learning a few important points in Litigation from the "other folks". John's work is at: http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com...d-chicago.html

Perfect Plaintiff...

[drwalther]

Originally Posted by krucam

John at 'No Lawyers, Only Guns & Money' has a great synopsis of Ms. Shepard, the lead plaintiff in this suit:

She is an absolutely wonderul Plaintiff. I think the NRA is learning a few important points in Litigation from the "other folks". John's work is at: http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com...d-chicago.html

Perfect Plaintiff...

yeah, she looks as near to the ideal plaintiff as one could hope to get.

so, what exactly is the relationship between SAF and NRA anyway? Sibling rivalry? Jock vs Geek? are they even on speaking terms?? one wonders...

[Inigoes]

Originally Posted by drwalther

so, what exactly is the relationship between SAF and NRA anyway? Sibling rivalry? Jock vs Geek?

Lawyer (SAF) vs. Politician (NRA)

Is my analogy

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by Inigoes

Lawyer (SAF) vs. Politician (NRA)

Is my analogy

A very appropriate analogy.

I recently wrote on a thread at TFL:

• If you want the biggest, baddest and meanest lobbying organization on your side (regardless of any perceived faults), then you will support the NRA by being a member (at the very least).
• If you want the biggest, baddest and meanest litigation organization on your side (regardless of any perceived faults), then you will support the SAF by being a member (at the very least).

There are times when I wish the NRA would stick to their main strengths. But they do seem to be learning. I really hope we don't see a pissing contest between the two organizations, like we did with McDonald. Together, the NRA and the SAF are stronger than they are apart.

[drwalther]

Originally Posted by Al Norris

A very appropriate analogy.

I recently wrote on a thread at TFL:

• If you want the biggest, baddest and meanest lobbying organization on your side (regardless of any perceived faults), then you will support the NRA by being a member (at the very least).
• If you want the biggest, baddest and meanest litigation organization on your side (regardless of any perceived faults), then you will support the SAF by being a member (at the very least).

There are times when I wish the NRA would stick to their main strengths. But they do seem to be learning. I really hope we don't see a pissing contest between the two organizations, like we did with McDonald. Together, the NRA and the SAF are stronger than they are apart.

maybe we should get the biggest, baddest and meanest communication facilitator to coordinate their efforts. To the superficial observer, it looks like at least the NRA isn't aware that SAF is there. Reading their releases, they never even mention SAF, even when they cite SAF suits! It would seem that their synergy would be far more potent than their approach of being two guys on the same block...

Edit:


SAF THANKS NRA, CRPA FOR EFFORT TO
ENFORCE ITS 1994 COURT VICTORY

BELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation today publicly thanked the National Rifle Association and California Rifle & Pistol Association for sponsoring two new legal actions that seek enforcement of a case SAF won in 1994 against the City of Los Angeles regarding concealed carry permits.

The case, Lake v City of Los Angeles, resulted in a judgment against the city, which had to issue a check to SAF on April 11, 1995 for the amount of $50,000. And, in the case of Assenza v City of Los Angeles the Second Amendment Foundation was given the right to nominate future appointments to the created advisory review panel for contested concealed carry license applications.

"We still have an enlarged photocopy of that check on our wall at the SAF office," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. "The city has continually failed to live up to the court order that requires the Los Angeles Police Department to issue applications for concealed weapons permits.

"Frankly," he continued, "it is disappointing, though not surprising, that the LAPD has fallen back on its old habits, as CRPA noted this morning when it announced the two legal actions. I am actually delighted that our friends at CRPA and NRA have jumped into this. It's been our pleasure to work with both organizations in the past, and since we won the original case 16 years ago, this ought to be a legal slam-dunk.

"The fact that new actions had to be initiated at all," Gottlieb observed, "demonstrates the necessity for continued vigilance against anti-gun bureaucracies. How many times does a court have to issue an order before a government entity gets the message?

"Today's announcement also makes it clear that even after SAF's Supreme Court victory last year in the McDonald case against Chicago, the firearms community still has enormous challenges," Gottlieb stated. "We've been so focused on filing federal cases in New Jersey, North Carolina, New York, Maryland, Washington, D.C. and elsewhere, and just this last week in Virginia and Illinois - where the NRA has also filed a subsequent lawsuit - that realizing someone we beat in 1995 had to be reminded of their obligations at this late date is not only surprising, it's kind of annoying.

"SAF is determined to win back firearms rights one lawsuit at a time, if necessary," he concluded. "Evidently, it is sometimes necessary to do it over and over again."

[krucam]

The short/sweet Complaint in Shepard v Madigan is attached.

[swinokur]

SAF released today:

SAF ADDS PLAINTIFFS IN ILLINOIS FIREARMS LAW CHALLENGE

BELLEVUE, WA - 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.

"SAF truly appreciates the wave of enthusiasm and support from gun owners all over Illinois," he continued. "But right now we need to move forward and if people would like to support our lawsuit with a tax-exempt contribution to SAF, we would welcome that. We simply cannot take on more plaintiffs at this point and further delay the process."



The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) 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. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.


< Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family > Copyright © 2011 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.
Second Amendment Foundation
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005 Voice: 425-454-7012
Toll Free: 800-426-4302

[drwalther]

Originally Posted by swinokur

SAF released today:

I got this also. I wonder why SAF thought it was necessary to add these folks. They must be plaintiffs that bring something special to the suit. Does anyone know any details that'd illuminate?

[Patrick]

They may have been planned as initial plaintiffs all along but due diligence required more time to investigate their claims, background and standing. Adding more plaintiffs in the District area also strengthens the venue choice.

The NRA picked one venue and the SAF picked another. Word on the interwebs says the two were coordinating, at least right before filing.

My hope is the two groups intentionally decided to both file essentially the same case in two separate districts. In McDonald and the related cases, they were stepping on each other and tripping up. Under this strategy, each can basically sue the snot out of the same people and not have to do anything more than stay out of each others way. Keep in mind that Gura and the SAF really love taking on Chicago, but this time they let NRA take it. An Olive Branch?

In my happy-land, Gura and Halbrook are talking regularly.

[krucam]

Some additional activity on the Docket in this still-youthful case.

2011-06-07 12 0 ORDER granting 10 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. The movants have adequately demonstrated good cause for an extension of time to file an answer to the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Defendants Tyler R Edmonds, Lisa M Madigan, Patrick J Quinn answer due 7/8/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 6/7/11. (ajt) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 06/07/2011)

[krucam]

Defendant Madigan (IL) requested and received an extension to file their response to this suit.

Bad news...

06/20/2011 16 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by David Livesay. (Bleyer, Joseph) (Entered: 06/20/2011)

06/21/2011 17 ORDER granting 16 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. The movant has demonstrated good cause for a thirty (30) day extension of time to file an answer. Defendant David Livesay answer due 7/8/11. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier on 6/21/11. (ajt) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. (Entered: 06/21/2011)

06/21/2011 David Livesay answer due 7/8/2011. (ajt, ) (Entered: 06/21/2011)

Their 30 day request worked out to be about 17 days by my rough SWAG when granted...good news.

[junglebob]

The Shepard v Madigan case will be heard in Benton in Southern Illinois about 300 miles from Chicago. When I heard about a lawsuit against Illinois, I said Mary Shepard would be a great plaintiff. (No they didn't ask my advice, nor did I sent it to them) I am expecting the court down here will rule in her favor and then it will be appealed to a court in the Chicago area. It is expected that they will rule against her. Then it will be appealed to the State Supreme Court, they will probably agree with Chicago, it will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

You Maryland folks may want to follow this and events in our quest in Illinois for right to carry by going to www.Illinoiscarry.com/forum

[hvymax]

In many of the recent cases it seems that the NRA is viewing the SAF as a threat to their significance and job security. Several of their actions seem to compromise the ability of the SAF to suceed in court and get paid for their efforts. I am beginning to view the NRA like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton trying to maintain significance at the expense of their members.

[krucam]

Originally Posted by junglebob

The Shepard v Madigan case will be heard in Benton in Southern Illinois about 300 miles from Chicago. When I heard about a lawsuit against Illinois, I said Mary Shepard would be a great plaintiff. (No they didn't ask my advice, nor did I sent it to them) I am expecting the court down here will rule in her favor and then it will be appealed to a court in the Chicago area. It is expected that they will rule against her. Then it will be appealed to the State Supreme Court, they will probably agree with Chicago, it will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

You Maryland folks may want to follow this and events in our quest in Illinois for right to carry by going to www.Illinoiscarry.com/forum

Welcome to the fray Junglebob. Its great to hear from somone in the hornets nest, so to speak.

Yes, this case (Shepard) is a much more sympathetic case (woman beaten) in a much more sympathetic locale. This should be a no-brainer as far as a presumed victory goes at the District level, but we've all been surprised at some of the other cases in the National theater.

Yes, if appealed after District, it will go to Chicago for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, but there are some sympathetic ears up there...go back to the Ezell Oral Arguments as an example.

After the 7th Circuit, this will NOT go to the IL State Supreme Court. It is in the Federal Court system...next stop after Circuit is at One First St in DC...

[junglebob]

Glad to hear it doesn't have to go to the state supreme court. I guess I should have known that as it is being heard in a federal court.

With the Illinois concealed carry bill failing to pass by 6 votes, 3 representatives are planning on introducing a bill that would allow carry on a county by county basis. Cook county and some others of course would opt out of allowing carry. From what I gather not only would Cook County residents not be able to get a LTC but people from counties that do allow LTC who have a LTC wouldn't be able to carry in Cook or other non-carry counties. The NRA state lobbyist says that if introduced it won't pass. He has said in the past that a bill allowing Chicago to opt out would not gain any votes from Chicago reps.

If it passed it would make the state a patchwork of places where you could or couldn't carry. My guess is if it did all the counties where I live (Southern Illinois south of Interstate 64) would allow carry. Every rep down here supported the recent LTC bill.

[krucam]

Originally Posted by junglebob

Glad to hear it doesn't have to go to the state supreme court. I guess I should have known that as it is being heard in a federal court.

With the Illinois concealed carry bill failing to pass by 6 votes, 3 representatives are planning on introducing a bill that would allow carry on a county by county basis. Cook county and some others of course would opt out of allowing carry. From what I gather not only would Cook County residents not be able to get a LTC but people from counties that do allow LTC who have a LTC wouldn't be able to carry in Cook or other non-carry counties. The NRA state lobbyist says that if introduced it won't pass. He has said in the past that a bill allowing Chicago to opt out would not gain any votes from Chicago reps.

If it passed it would make the state a patchwork of places where you could or couldn't carry. My guess is if it did all the counties where I live (Southern Illinois south of Interstate 64) would allow carry. Every rep down here supported the recent LTC bill.

Don't let The Machine in Chicago dictate the rules. The Legislative option was tried and "they" wouldn't have it. Now that there are two Civil cases filed in the Federal Court system, they suddenly want to talk.

Your NRA Lobbyist (Troy?) ought to know this.

Screw Chicago....and I say that loving the town BTW! Lived there (Wrigleyville, Wicker Park), have family there, I'll be there in July...but the tables have turned and there's no going back now.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by junglebob

Glad to hear it doesn't have to go to the state supreme court. I guess I should have known that as it is being heard in a federal court.

With the Illinois concealed carry bill failing to pass by 6 votes, 3 representatives are planning on introducing a bill that would allow carry on a county by county basis. Cook county and some others of course would opt out of allowing carry. From what I gather not only would Cook County residents not be able to get a LTC but people from counties that do allow LTC who have a LTC wouldn't be able to carry in Cook or other non-carry counties. The NRA state lobbyist says that if introduced it won't pass. He has said in the past that a bill allowing Chicago to opt out would not gain any votes from Chicago reps.

If it passed it would make the state a patchwork of places where you could or couldn't carry. My guess is if it did all the counties where I live (Southern Illinois south of Interstate 64) would allow carry. Every rep down here supported the recent LTC bill.

A better option(other than the bill that failed) would be for a straight out may-issue with the county sheriffs as the issuing authority, with all permits valid statewide. From some of the IL folks, outside of Chicago and a few suburbs, the rest of the state would basically be shall-issue. This would be better than what they have now which is nothing. It would only be short lived since SCOTUS will decide the issue within 2 years.

[junglebob]

Originally Posted by press1280

A better option(other than the bill that failed) would be for a straight out may-issue with the county sheriffs as the issuing authority, with all permits valid statewide. From some of the IL folks, outside of Chicago and a few suburbs, the rest of the state would basically be shall-issue. This would be better than what they have now which is nothing. It would only be short lived since SCOTUS will decide the issue within 2 years.

We'd still need the same number of votes on a may-issue bill, 71 for preemption, because House speaker Madigan says so, and to override a veto by the governor. Our NRA lobbyist, Todd Vandermyde, doesn't think any votes would be gained if a bill allowed Chicago to opt out so I imagine that a may-issue bill wouldn't gain enough extra votes.

One thing about having may-issue and leaving it up to the sheriff, Iowa had this til this year. Some counties were almost shall issue and some the sheriff issued hardly at all. If you had a license to carry and it came up for renewal and the sheriff hand changed you might not get renewed. I expect in my area of the state there wouldn't be much trouble getting a license.

I took a NRA Protection in the Home handgun class and one of the instructors said he had heard that the States Attorney in his county wouldn't prosecute a woman carrying a handgun for protection, outside the home, if not violating any other law.

Illinois does have good firearm transportation laws for residents, just unloaded and cased, can be accessible, a loaded magazine can be in the case with the firearm. The state supreme court even ruled that a car's console is a case. Chicago area of course has some local ordinaces that can mess you up, requiring it to be broken down and not accessible. You don't have to be traveling to a range, gun shop, or hunting location either.

[press1280]

If Chicago wanted to, they could use the permits to reward their political friends for a year or two until SCOTUS knocks it down. But I guess they've decided to just let the lawsuit eventually do the job that the bill was supposed to.