Madigan's Procrastination Rewarded....Again

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan was granted a second extension of time in which to file an appeal in the joint cases of Moore v. Madigan and Shepard v. Madigan. Justice Elena Kagan granted the extension of time to file the appeal until July 22nd.

The extension was granted by Justice Kagan on June 18th. One has to wonder if it had been Justice Thomas or Justice Scalia would Madigan have gotten her extension granted so easily. Unfortunately, the 7th Circuit is assigned to Justice Kagan for these type of matters.

The whole issue would become moot if Gov. Pat Quinn signs the carry bill that was passed on June 4th by the Illinois General Assembly. Madigan's father, House Speaker Michael Madigan, is urging Quinn to do just that.

The Chicago Democrat's office said Tuesday that the governor has not decided what action he'll take on the legislation. The attorney general's office released Kagan's order but did not have an immediate comment.

House Speaker Michael Madigan - the attorney general's father and a fellow Chicago Democrat - urged Quinn to sign the bill, which was a hard-fought compromise between the House and Senate.

"If you look at the vote in the House and the Senate it's pretty clear that the governor's veto could be overridden," Madigan said after an unrelated committee hearing Tuesday.

As Sebastian noted when Madigan requested the second extension, this is getting ridiculous and it is time for Illinois politicians to stop playing games.

Madigan Files For 30 Day Stay On Mandate (Updated)

Getting each house of the Illinois General Assembly to pass a concealed carry law with lopsided margins looks to have been the easy part. The harder part, in many ways, is going to be getting the law implemented.

It just got a bit harder today thanks to the machinations of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan. She has filed a motion to stay the 7th Circuit's 180 day mandate to have a concealed carry law in place for another 30 days. She gives as her rationale that it would give Gov. Pat Quinn "a reasonable time to fulfill his constitutional duties." The Illinois Constitution gives the governor 60 days after a bill's passage to consider and sign it. That amount of time is one of the longest in the nation according to the National Governor's Association.

Madigan argues that the additional time is necessary to avoid having no state law in place which she says was the court's original intent of the 180-day stay of its mandate.

The expiration of the stay on June 9 without a substitute law in place would present a significant harm, not to the defendants in an individualized or official capacity, but to the People and Constitution of Illinois. The current stay of this Court’s mandate expires in less than one week, significantly shortening the sixty-day period constitutionally afforded the Governor to consider and sign legislation into law. Expiration of the stay on June 9 will either eliminate that constitutionally-provided period entirely or create a gap in state firearm regulation. These represent unnecessary harms to the public interest.

Madigan goes on to argue that 30 days is only for the "orderly completion of the legislative process and is not intended for purposes of delay." If this is indeed the case, one might well ask why Madigan isn't asking for 51 days or the full amount of time left for Gov. Quinn to either sign or veto the bill under the Illinois Constitution.

Madigan concludes her argument by saying she recognizes that a delay of a constitutional right imposes a burden upon the plaintiffs but that is outweighed by the public's interest in not having a period where no law is in effect.

It should be noted that Madigan still has another 21 days left on her extension in which to file a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court appealing this case. There is no word on what she intends to do regarding that.

UPDATE: Despite it being highly irregular and that a stay would seem to violate many of the Rules of Federal Appellate Procedure, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan got her order staying the mandate of the court for another 30 days. 

1. MOTION TO STAY MANDATE FOR 30 ADDITIONAL DAYS, filed on June 3, 2013, by counsel for the appellees.

2. OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY MANDATE FOR ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS, filed on June 4, 2013, by counsel for appellants Michael Moore, Charles Hooks, Peggy Fechter, Jon Maier, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., and Illinois Carry.

3. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS MARY SHEPARD AND ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY MANDATE FOR ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS, filed on June 4, 2013, by counsel for appellants Mary Shepard and the Illinois State Rifle Association.

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to stay mandate for additional 30 days is GRANTED. This court’s mandate is STAYED until July 9, 2013. No further extensions to stay the court’s mandate will be granted. form

 Sebastian has more on the opposing motions here.

Supreme Court Grants Illinois 30-Day Extension

The United States Supreme Court has granted Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan's request for a 30-day extension in which to file a writ of certiorari in the joint carry cases of Shepard v. Madigan and Moore v. Madigan.

The application was granted by Justice Kagan.

From the court's order:

Title: Lisa Madigan, et al., Applicants v. Michael Moore, et al. Docketed: May 1, 2013 Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit   Case Nos.: (12-1269, 12-1788) ~~~Date~~~  ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Apr 26 2013 Application (12A1053) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 23, 2013 to June 24, 2013, submitted to Justice Kagan. May 2 2013 Application (12A1053) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until June 24, 2013.

NRA-ILA On Win In 7th Circuit

The NRA-ILA was also pleased with the ruling from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday that denied Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan's request for an en banc hearing of the dual cases - Moore v. Madigan and Shepard v. Madigan.

They released this statement yesterday.

Fairfax, Va. – The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled on December 11, 2012, that Illinois' total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home or business is unconstitutional. Today, the same court sitting en banc denied the State of Illinois’ petition to rehear the case. The case involves lead plaintiff Mary Shepard, an Illinois resident and a trained gun owner, who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun in both Utah and Florida. The National Rifle Association is funding this case. The Illinois State Rifle and Pistol Association is a co-plaintiff in this case.

On September 28, 2009, while working as the treasurer of her church, Ms. Shepard and an 83-year-old co-worker were viciously attacked and beaten by a six-foot-three-inch, 245 pound man with a violent past and a criminal record. Ms. Shepard and her co-worker were lucky to survive, as each of them suffered major injuries to the head, neck and upper body. Ms. Shepard's injuries required extensive surgeries and she continues physical therapy to this day attempting to recover from her injuries.

In the ruling which was upheld today, Judge Richard Posner ruled that Illinois’ ban on carriage is unconstitutional. The Judge went on to say, “One doesn’t have to be a historian to realize that a right to keep and bear arms for personal self-defense in the eighteenth century could not rationally have been limited to the home. . . . Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk than in his apartment on the 35th floor.”

"Today's decision is a major victory for the Second Amendment and all the law abiding citizens of Illinois who wish to both to keep arms, and to bear arms," added Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "It is now clear that no state can deny law-abiding residents the right to carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home. We have been fighting this case for years and are prepared to keep fighting until the courts fully protect the entire Second Amendment."

SAF On Win In 7th Circuit

The refusal of the 7th Circuit to grant Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan an en banc hearing is a win for concealed carry in that state. While the question remains whether Madigan will appeal to the US Supreme Court, in the meantime the Illinois General Assembly has to get to work on a concealed carry law that would pass the court's muster.

As you can imagine, the Second Amendment Foundation is thrilled with the refusal to grant an en banc hearing.

7TH CIRCUIT LETS POSNER RULING STAND; HUGE WIN FOR CCW, SAYS SAF

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today won a significant victory for concealed carry when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals let stand a December ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that forces Illinois to adopt a concealed carry law, thus affirming that the right to bear arms exists outside the home.

The ruling came in Moore v. Madigan, a case filed by SAF. The December opinion that now stands was written by Judge Richard Posner, who gave the Illinois legislature 180 days to “craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment…on the carrying of guns in public.” That clock is ticking, noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.

“Illinois lawmakers need to create some kind of licensing system or face the prospect of not having any regulations at all when Judge Posner’s deadline arrives,” Gottlieb said. “They need to act. They can no longer run and hide from this mandate.”

“We were delighted with Judge Posner’s ruling in December,” he continued, “and today’s decision by the entire circuit to allow his ruling to stand is a major victory, and not just for gun owners in Illinois. Judge Posner’s ruling affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms, itself, extends beyond the boundary of one’s front door.”

In December, Judge Posner wrote, “The right to ‘bear’ as distinct from the right to ‘keep’ arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of ‘bearing’ arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.”

Judge Posner subsequently added, “To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.”

“It is now up to the legislature,” Gottlieb said, “to craft a statute that recognizes the right of ordinary citizens to carry outside the home, without a sea of red tape or a requirement to prove any kind of need beyond the cause of personal protection.”

The ruling also affects a similar case filed by the National Rifle Association known as Shepard v. Madigan.

Interesting Report On Concealed Carry Hearings

Chicago's ABC 7 had a report on the legislative hearings about concealed carry in Illinois in the wake of the 7th Circuit's denial of an en banc hearing for Moore/Shepard v Madigan. You just have to shake your head in dismay about the hysteria and ignorance spouted by officials from the Chicago Transit Authority and from the gun control lobby. Fortunately, this was offset by Dr. Paula Bradich and Todd Vandermyde.

Illinois AG Madigan Requests En Banc Hearing In Carry Cases

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan announced today that she will be requesting an en banc review of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the joint cases of Moore v. Madigan and Shepard v. Madigan. This decision by the 7th Circuit would have forced the Illinois General Assembly to come up with some form of concealed carry within 180 days. An en banc review means all the judges of the 7th Circuit will review the case and not just the three judge panel assigned to the case. As I understand it, a petition for an en banc review is not automatically granted.

There had been some question on whether or not Madigan would appeal or seek an en banc review given her ambitions to succeed Pat Quinn as Governor of Illinois. Letting the decision stand would have been a bone tossed to downstate Illinois Democrats who tend to look at gun rights more favorably. I take Madigan's petition as an indication that she feels that gun control post-Newtown is a winning proposition.

From Madigan's press release:

Chicago — Attorney General Lisa Madigan today announced she has filed a petition for rehearing before the full U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in lawsuits challenging the Illinois laws that prevent the carrying of ready-to-use firearms in public.

The Attorney General’s petition for a rehearing “en banc” is a request for all of the judges on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to review the case after a December decision by a three-judge panel of the court held that the state laws barring carrying ready-to-use firearms in public are unconstitutional.

Madigan’s petition was filed in lawsuits brought against the State of Illinois by Michael Moore, Mary E. Shepard and the Illinois State Rifle Association, which allege that Illinois’ restrictions on the carrying of ready-to-use weapons in public violates their Second Amendment rights. The laws had previously been upheld by two separate federal district courts in Illinois.

In its December decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals set a 180-day deadline for the Illinois legislature to draft and enact new laws relating to carrying ready-to-use firearms in public. Today’s petition for rehearing by the Attorney General does not affect that deadline.

Madigan issued the following statement regarding her decision to seek a rehearing:

“In ruling that Illinois must allow individuals to carry ready-to-use firearms in public, the 7th Circuit Court’s decision goes beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court has held and conflicts with decisions by two other federal appellate courts. Based on those decisions, it is appropriate to ask the full 7th Circuit to review this case and consider adopting an approach that is consistent with the other appellate courts that have addressed these issues after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Heller and McDonald decisions.”

UPDATE: The petition from the Illinois Attorney General's Office can be found here.

The Brady Center along with Trayvon Martin's parents and others have filed an amicus brief in support of the Madigan's petition. It can be found here. Frankly, I find the thought of including Trayvon Martin's parents in the amicus brief just a trifle tacky. But then again, this is the new and improved Brady Center.

There is also an amicus brief in support of Madigan's petition from the City of Chicago, the Chicago Board of Ed, the Chicago Transit Authority, and the Legal Center to Prevent Gun Violence (the old LCAV) which can be found here.

Dave Kopel Provides An Analysis Of 7th Circuit's Illinois Carry Decision

In an interview with Cam Edwards of NRA News, Second Amendment scholar Dave Kopel analyzes the opinion of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Moore and Shepard cases.

He makes the point that Judge Richard Posner who wrote the decision is "the furthest thing from a libertarian" and had publicly disagreed with the Supreme Court's reasoning in the Heller decision. However, Kopel said Posner was very smart and could read what the Supreme Court said (and meant) in that decision. If Posner had been a Supreme Court justice, his opinion might have been different. Since he wasn't, Kopel said Posner wasn't going to impose his own views on this case.

Just Like Clockwork

It didn't take long for the Chicago Sun-Times to call upon Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan to appeal the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the joint cases of Moore v. Madigan and Shepard v. Madigan.

In their lead editorial today entitled "Madigan should appeal gun ruling", the Sun-Times opines:

Illinois’ status as the only state that does not allow the carrying of concealed loaded guns was threatened Tuesday when a federal appeals court gave the state 180 days to change its law.

But that doesn’t mean Illinois should immediately allow anyone who feels like it to start toting a pistol.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who said Tuesday that she is reviewing her options, should appeal the overbroad ruling by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. And if the courts won’t extend the deadline while considering the appeal, the Legislature will have to craft a law that meets the court’s standards while providing as many protections as possible for citizens who don’t carry guns.

The Legislature might even be able to find a way to continue banning concealed carry while rewriting the law to satisfy the appeals court, which said the current law doesn’t rest on sufficient justification. Short of that, the Legislature could consider a narrowly crafted law, such as that in New York, which has concealed carry in theory but does not grant many permits.

Reading the full editorial, one can't help but get the feeling that the editors of the Sun-Times are the residents of the 35th floor of the Park Tower of whom Judge Posner said had less need for concealed carry than people living in rough neighborhoods.

Frankly, I hope Ms. Madigan does pull an "Adrian Fenty" and appeal the ruling. Without the hubris of former Washington, DC Mayor Adrian Fenty, we would never have had the Heller decision confirming the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Likewise, without cases like this one being appealed, we will never get a decision from the Supreme Court on the right to carry outside the home.

SAF On The Win Today In Chicago

The Second Amendment Foundation released this statement this afternoon concerning their win in the SAF's case of Moore v. Madigan. As you can imagine, they are very happy.

What isn't said is that the win in Moore/Shepard now gives them a split on carry between circuits with the 7th coming down on the side of carry while the 2nd Circuit's ruling on Kachalsky affirmed New York's Sullivan Law. This is very good as it will make it more likely that the Supreme Court will hear one or another of the Second Amendment carry cases working their way through the courts.

From the SAF's release:

SAF WINS HUGE VICTORY FOR CARRY IN ILLINOIS

BELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation has won a huge victory for the right to bear arms outside the home, with a ruling in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that declares the right to self-defense is "broader than the right to have a gun in one's home."

The case of Moore v. Madigan, with Judge Richards Posner writing for the majority, gives the Illinois legislature 180 days to "craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendmenton the carrying of guns in public."

"We are very happy with Judge Posner's majority opinion," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "This is a victory for Illinois citizens who have been long denied a right recognized in the other 49 states; to have the means necessary for self-defense outside the home.

"In the broader sense," he added, "this ruling affirms that the right to keep and bear arms, itself, extends beyond the boundary of one's front door. This is a huge victory for the Second Amendment."

"The Second Amendment," Judge Posner writes, "states in its entirety that a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' The right to bear' as distinct from the right to keep' arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of bearing' arms within one's home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home."

Later, Judge Posner adds, "To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald."

"That the court will give Illinois lawmakers six months to craft a law allowing carry outside the home recognizes that the right to bear arms means what it says," Gottlieb concluded. "The ball is now in the Legislature's court, and we eagerly wait to see how well they can live up to their responsibility."

ISRA On Today's 7th Circuit Win

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.

Oral Arguments Set For Challenges To Illinois' Ban On Carry

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.

SAF On Their Appeal In Moore v. Madigan

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."

Moore V. Madigan Dismissed But Will Be Appealed

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.

SAF Files For Preliminary Injunction Against Illinois In Carry Case

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.”

Moore v. Madigan - More Plaintiffs Added To Complaint

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.”

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

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..”