SAF Request Injunction to Allow Public Carry in Illinois

SAF Press release:

SAF FILES FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AGAINST ILLINOIS CARRY BAN​

BELLEVUE, WA - 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 rightsGun 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."




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. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs 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
FAX: 425-451-3959
email: InformationRequest@saf.org

To stop receiving these alerts, send an email to subscriptions@liberty.seanet.com with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. To ensure your alerts are delivered to your inbox (and not inadvertently diverted to a bulk or junk email folder by spam filters), be sure to add saf_alerts@liberty.seanet.com to your email address book or contact list.

Click to expand...

Need a new thread for that one. It is going to be a fast burner. It could be in and out of the courts in under 60 days.

The games played in the past are coming to an end.

Ezell ruled that violations of 2A are characterized by "irreparable harm". That standard is huge, as it demands an instant analysis of the restriction in question and it requires a instant response (injunction) if it violates the right. So the court need only evaluate the right...not the harm caused by the restriction (which is irreparable).

In Ezell, much of the fight was over the "harm" that the range ban caused. The district court ruled the harm was minimal, and that even if it were serious it would not be 'irreparable' to the right (which the judge said did not exist). There can be no such argument over harm anymore. Case closed.


When a case comes before the court with jurisprudence already supplying an 'irreparable harm' standard, it goes right to the front of the line. This is not going to be a six month review...it could be done in under two months. Then on to the Seventh Circuit for appeal, where it will also get the fast track.

Add up the calendars...three months for the district court and three months in the circuit. Six months plus some change...that means ready for a cert request this coming session. Again...ruling from SCOTUS next June.

That's three, if you include Williams and Masciandaro.

I'm stealing Mark's line: 2012 is going to be a great year.

Wow! Three?! Perhaps 2012 will be known as the year of the 2A revival in real-life practical terms? I mean, I know Heller & McDonald set the stage on paper but three SCOTUS cases in one year is a LOT of working room for the high court to clean up the mess in the lower courts. 2A might become a real tangible right this time next year. That's exciting!

My how the world has changed. er, will change.

Dogabutila said:

My how the world has changed. er, will change.

Click to expand...

You've got that right. The Preliminary Injunction (PI) route is much, much quicker course of action. The 7th handed us this option with their Euell opinion. Benson, Shepard and 2AA would be wise to get while the gettin's good.

Yeah, we can expect to see a notice of supplemental authority filed in Benson real soon now. But they made some quirky claims that require discovery, and there is little way to speed that up.

The SAF's recent PI claim only requires a review of merits, not fact. That means no discovery, even though IL will try to create some fact-finding. I expect this time the SAF's Jensen will fight any request for findings and with the Ezell opinion in his hand he has more of a stick. Also, he is going to make this fight in the southern part of the state, where even the Democrats were in favor of shall-issue this year. He might get lucky and pull the right judge, unlike Chicago where there is almost no chance.

Armed with the recent Ezell decision, the SAF's Mr. Jensen files a request for injunction against Illinois.

Motion for Injunction

Supporting Memorandum

This one could be a barn-burner and race through the system due to the "Irreparable Harm" standard set by the Seventh Circuit in Ezell. No more arguing over whether the restriction is even "bad"...if it restricts 2A it requires immediate action.

So this fight will be about nothing more than whether citizens have the right to bear arms in public. If they do, then the results are already decided: injunction against Illinois law (and by extension, Chicago).

This one should move fast. That harm standard means the courts must sit up and take notice. It jumps ahead in the line. Also, the SAF is fighting in the southern part of the state - where even the Democrats supported shall-issue this year. Might get a more sympathetic judge than Chicago.

2 days? That's a freaking steamroller! Daley must be livid.

How long do you think it will take for us to apply this to Woollard and request an injunction?

Ezell wont do us as much good in the 4th. EVERY case under the 7th should be able to take advantage of this immediately. Woollard and others will certainly use this for any advantage possible, as they should...just don't expect an injunction.

krucam said:

Ezell wont do us as much good in the 4th. EVERY case under the 7th should be able to take advantage of this immediately. Woollard and others will certainly use this for any advantage possible, as they should...just don't expect an injunction.

Click to expand...

They are going to use Ezell a couple of ways:

- To force injunctive relief in the Seventh. Already discussed.

- As supplemental authority in other circuits: this is a strong decision and could sway some cases where no contradictory opinion in that circuit already exists. It could help us in the Fourth and maybe even in Woollard.

- As a method to force a circuit split. CGF and SAF are now openly (publicly) admitting they are going to use Ezell to force a circuit split if the Ninth fails to take the same approach in Nordyke and other cases. CGF is going to push for injunctive relief using Ezell as an authority in direct contradiction of Nordyke. When the Ninth is faced with a choice, anything short of agreement with Ezell is going to be cause for cert to the Supreme Court. The word "dare" was used.