Moore v. Madigan

Uncategorized

ISRA On Today’s 7th Circuit Win

December 11, 2012 by 3 Comments

The Illinois State Rifle Association welcomed the ruling by Judge Posner in the joint appeal of Moore v. Madigan and Shepard v. Madigan today. However, they recognize that with the focus shifting to the Illinois General Assembly, it is time to get to work so that a sham carry law isn’t shoved through the legislature by the anti-gun, anti-carry forces.

From ISRA’s Urgent Alert sent earlier this afternoon:

7TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DIRECTS ILLINOIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO PASS CONCEALED CARRY BILL

BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT:

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has rendered a decision in the Shepard/Moore v. Madigan case that states that Illinois’ ban on concealed carry is unconstitutional. The court further directs the legislature to pass a concealed carry bill within 180 days. Although the announcement of this court ruling would appear to be good news for self-defense advocates, it is really nothing more than the first volley in what will be a heated battle to preserve and protect our gun rights. The gun control movement, headed by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, will be introducing a concealed carry bill of their own for the sole purpose of satisfying the court order. Madigan’s bill is sure to be a sham that will be so restrictive and impractical that only very few Illinois citizens would even qualify for a carry permit – most citizens would remain unprotected from criminals. Information obtained from within the Madigan organization indicates that the anti-gunners will piggyback an “assault weapons” ban and other onerous gun control legislation on the concealed carry bill. In order to prevent Madigan from hijacking concealed carry, Illinois gun owners need to step up and let their voices be heard on this issue.

HERE IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO GET A GOOD CONCEALED CARRY BILL PASSED:

1. Contact your State Representative and State Senator. Politely advise them that you are a law-abiding firearm owner and that you support the court of appeals decision in the Shepard case. Politely advise them that you want them to vote against any sham concealed carry bill that Lisa Madigan will try to push. Politely tell them that you want them to vote for HB 148, the Family and Personal Protection Act. Advise them that you will not support any concealed carry bill that contains provisions that would discourage the average citizen from seeking a carry permit such as exorbitant fees, impossible training requirements, or excessive red tape. Advise them that you will only support a “clean” concealed carry bill that does not try to sneak through gun control schemes. If you do not know who your State Representative and/or State Senator is, please visit the Illinois State Board of Elections website link here.

2. Pass this alert along to your family and friends. Encourage them to contact their representatives as well.

3. Post this alert to any and all internet blogs or bulletin boards to which you may belong.

Uncategorized

Oral Arguments Set For Challenges To Illinois’ Ban On Carry

May 9, 2012 by 7 Comments

The NRA’s challenge to the ban on any form of carry in the state of Illinois, Shepard et al v. Madigan, will come before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for oral arguments on Friday, June 8th in Chicago. The Illinois State Rifle Association is a party to this suit.

At the same time, the Court of Appeals will also hear the Second Amendment Foundation’s case, Moore et al v. Madigan. Illinois Carry, SAF, and a number of other individual plaintiffs are party to this suit.

A motion had been made to consolidate the cases by attorneys for the State of Illinois and was denied on April 26th. Judge Frank Esterbrook ordered:

IT IS ORDERED that the motions to consolidate are DENIED. Appellees do not need a formal order of consolidation in order to file one brief addressing two appeals. They may file one brief, or two, at their option.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for an extension of time is GRANTED, but only until May 9, 2012 (in both appeals). This should allow enough time to prepare a single brief covering the two cases. Appellees previously told the court that the two suits are functionally identical. There is accordingly no need for time beyond the 30-day extension already granted, and this one-week increment.

The court’s last regular sitting of the current term is June 8, 2012. If the court were to delay the appellees’ briefs until June 1 or June 11 (the alternate dates appellees propose), that would postpone oral argument until next September, an unnecessary delay. Appellees must file their brief (or briefs) in both cases by May 9, and appellants their reply briefs by May 23. That will permit oral argument the last week of May or the first full week of June.

The lead attorney for the plaintiff-appellants in the Shepard case is Charles Cooper of Cooper and Kirk. Mr. Cooper has been handling much of the NRA’s appeal work and formerly was an Assistant Attorney General in the Reagan Administration.

David Sigale, co-counsel in both the McDonald and Ezell cases, is listed as the counsel of record in the Moore case. However, I expect Alan Gura to present the oral arguments as there was a notation in the docket of his schedule and he is listed as an attorney in the case.

UPDATE: P.T. had a question below about the three judges who will hear the case and whether they had been announced. I asked David Sigale if he knew who they would be. His response is below:

John, my understanding is that the Judges get picked for the panel not long before the argument. In any event, the litigants only find out who is on the panel when they show up that morning.

Uncategorized

SAF On Their Appeal In Moore v. Madigan

February 6, 2012 by 1 Comment

The Second Amendment Foundation released this statement today regarding the dismissal of Moore v. Madigan, the Illinois carry case.

SAF APPEALS JUDGE’S DISMISSAL OF MOORE V. MADIGAN CARRY CASE

For Immediate Release: 2/6/2012

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation immediately filed an appeal following dismissal of its challenge to Illinois statutes that prohibit the carrying of loaded firearms outside the home for personal protection in the case of Moore v. Madigan.

The case is named for individual plaintiff Michael Moore, and defendant Lisa Madigan in her capacity as Illinois Attorney General. Joining Moore and SAF in the case are Illinois Carry, and three other private citizens, Charles Hooks, Peggy Fechter and Jon Maier.

The complaint was dismissed by Federal District Judge Sue E. Meyerscough, an Obama administration appointee who formerly served on the Illinois State Appellate Court.

In her ruling, Judge Meyerscough stated, “This Court finds that the Illinois ‘Unlawful Use of Weapons’ and ‘Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon’ statutes do not violate Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit have recognized only a Second Amendment core individual right to bear arms inside the home. Further, even if this Court recognized a Second Amendment right to bear arms outside of the home and an interference with that right, the statutes nonetheless survive constitutional scrutiny.”

In response, SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb suggested the judge’s ruling defies common sense.

“We look forward to winning this important case on appeal even if it means going back to the United States Supreme Court for a third time,” Gottlieb stated. “The Second Amendment does not say, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except outside your home or that it only applies inside your house. We don’t check our constitutional rights at the front door.”

Judge Myerscough denied SAF and its co-plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against two laws in Illinois that make it a crime to carry loaded firearms outside the home for personal protection. Instead, she supported the state’s motion to dismiss the case.

As Dave Hardy noted, he found the reasoning of Judge Myersclough in this case to be “extremely sloppy.”

Uncategorized

Moore V. Madigan Dismissed But Will Be Appealed

February 6, 2012 by 1 Comment

In the judicial equivalent of a Friday night document dump by the Justice Department, Judge Sue E. Myersclough released her opinion in Moore v. Madigan. This case was the challenge by the Second Amendment Foundation and Illinois Carry to the State of Illinois’ ban on carry outside the home. It was brought in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Springfield.

Judge Myersclough denied the plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction and granted the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

Quickly summarizing her findings, Judge Myersclough found the Illinois “Unlawful Use of Weapons” and “Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon” statutes do not violate the Second Amendment. She goes on to say that the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit have only recognized “a Second Amendment core individual right to bear arms inside the home.” Myersclough then says that even if the laws violated the Second Amendment, the statutes would survive constitutional scrutiny. Based on this, she didn’t think the plaintiffs’ could show a likelihood of success on the merits and therefore dismissed the case.

A Notice of Appeal to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was filed within an hour of Judge Myersclough’s decision in this case.

I am halfway through my reading of the decision and will have more after I have had time to digest it. One thing I am looking for in her decision is an indication of how she will rule in another Second Amendment case – Mishaga v. Monken – that is before her presently.

As I wrote in a post last year regarding Judge Myersclough and the Mishaga case, she was nominated by President Obama. She had been asked whether Heller and McDonald limited handgun possession to the home and she replied that the Supreme Court left that for future evaluations. I guess we know now where she stands on that.

Uncategorized

SAF Files For Preliminary Injunction Against Illinois In Carry Case

July 7, 2011 by

The Second Amendment Foundation filed for a preliminary injunction today in their case, Moore v. Madigan, challenging the State of Illinois’s ban on all forms of carry. Their release on it is below. Let me say this – no grass grows under their legal feet!

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 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.”

Uncategorized

Moore v. Madigan – More Plaintiffs Added To Complaint

May 20, 2011 by 1 Comment

The Second Amendment Foundation’s case challenging the state of Illinois’ complete prohibition on the carrying of a handgun for self-defense just added one organization plaintiff, IllinoisCarry, and two individual plaintiffs, Peggy Fechter of Carmi and Jon Maier of Bloomington.

Below is their release on the amended complaint. I am working on a post comparing the SAF and NRA lawsuits against Attorney General Lisa Madigan and the state of Illinois. I hope to have it up sometime this weekend.

SAF ADDS PLAINTIFFS IN ILLINOIS FIREARMS LAW CHALLENGE
For Immediate Release: 5/20/2011
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.”

Uncategorized

Moore v. Madigan: SAF Sues Illinois Over Ban On Carrying For Self-Defense

May 13, 2011 by

The lead plaintiff in the Second Amendment Foundation’s latest suit is Michael Moore. Of course it is not the oafish Hollywood director who is the plaintiff. Rather this Michael Moore is the Superintendent of the Champaign County (IL) Jail. Prior to this, Mr. Moore worked for 30 years as a sworn corrections officer and a deputy sheriff in Cook County. Because Mr. Moore switched from a sworn position to a civilian position, he is no longer allowed to carry a firearm for self-defense in public.

The Second Amendment Foundation filed their suit yesterday in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. By happenstance, the judge assigned to this case, Judge Sue Myersclough, is the same judge hearing the Mountain States Legal Foundation’s case, Mishaga v. Monken. The lead attorney for this case is David Jensen who is also the lead attorney is the SAF’s suit against the City of New York.

I will have an analysis of the case up after I get a chance to thoroughly read it.

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed suit in federal court in Illinois, challenging the state’s complete prohibition on the carrying of firearms in public for the purpose of self-defense.

The lawsuit alleges that Illinois statutes that completely ban the carrying of handguns for self-defense are “inconsistent with the Second Amendment.” Joining SAF are two private citizens, Michael Moore of Champaign and Charles Hooks of Percy. Named as defendants are Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and State Police Superintendent Patrick Keen. SAF is represented by attorneys David Jensen and David Sigale. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

“Illinois is currently the only state in the country that imposes a complete prohibition on the carrying of firearms for personal protection by its citizens,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “The state legislature recently stopped, by a thin margin, a concealed carry measure. After the 2008 Heller ruling and last year’s McDonald ruling against the City of Chicago that incorporated the Second Amendment to the states, one would think that Illinois lawmakers would act quickly to comply with court decisions and the constitution.”

“Illinois is the only state in the country that completely prohibits its citizens from carrying guns for self-defense,” Jensen added. “It is incredible that this situation has persisted even in light of the Supreme Court’s rulings in Heller and McDonald, and we look forward to vindicating the rights of the people of Illinois.”

The lawsuit insists this case is not an attempt to force Illinois into some regulatory scheme, but only to clarify that the state’s current regulatory ban on firearms carry is impermissible under the Second Amendment.

“Every other state has some kind of regulatory scenario,” Gottlieb noted. “Even in Wisconsin, where there is no concealed carry statute, the state attorney general has recognized that open carry is legal. Only Illinois makes it statutorily impossible for average private citizens to carry firearms for self-defense.

“Whether Illinois lawmakers like it or not,” he added, “the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is the law of the land. A complete prohibition simply does not pass constitutional muster. The state cannot stick it’s head in the sand and pretend this problem does not exist..”