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.

NRA Calls It A "Victory For Self-Defense"

Just like the Second Amendment Foundation, the NRA is celebrating today's ruling by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. If you will recall, the 7th Circuit combined the appeals of the SAF's case - Moore v. Madigan - and the NRA's case - Shepard v. Madigan - into a joint appeal. Plaintiffs' oral arguments were presented by both Alan Gura and Charles Cooper.

The NRA's release on the win is below:

Federal Court Strikes down Illinois' total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home or business

Fairfax, Va. – The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled today that Illinois' total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home or business is unconstitutional. 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 Association is a co-plaintiff in this case.

“Today’s ruling is a victory for all law abiding citizens in Illinois and gun owners throughout the country,” said Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of NRA. “The court recognized that the text and history of the Second Amendment guarantee individuals the right to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense and other lawful purposes. In light of this ruling, Mary Shepard and the people of Illinois will finally be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

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 today’s decision, 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 ruling is a major victory for law-abiding Illinoisans—and for everyone who understands that the Second Amendment protects the right both to keep arms, and to bear arms," added Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "This ruling makes clear that Illinois cannot deny law-abiding residents the right to carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home. This is a step in the right direction for all gun owners. We know it probably won’t be the end of this case, and we’re ready to keep fighting until the courts fully protect the entire Second Amendment."

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.

Shepard V. Madigan - A Loss In District Court

US District Court Judge William D. Stiehl granted the State of Illinois's Motion to Dismiss yesterday in the NRA-ISRA challenge to Illinois carry laws. The case, Shepard v. Madigan, was brought in US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Judge Stiehl granted the state's motion to "dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim". At the same time he denied the plaintiffs' motions.

The NRA has indicated that they will appeal the ruling:

"Late today, a federal district court in Illinois wrongly ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to carry firearms for self-protection outside the home. The NRA funded this challenge to Illinois' ban on citizens' ability to carry firearms legally outside their homes and businesses for self-defense, and will also be supporting an immediate appeal to the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals--and to the Supreme Court if necessary.

The decision in the case of Shepard v. Madigan misreads the Supreme Court's Second Amendment decisions and will continue to deprive law-abiding Illinoisans of the right to protect themselves effectively against crime on the streets.  It also conflicts with a growing body of case law elsewhere in the country, where courts have increasingly recognized that the right to bear arms for self-defense doesn't end at Americans' front doors.

"The NRA's legal efforts will not end until the right to carry firearms for self-defense is fully recognized throughout our land," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox.

Judge Stiehl found that intermediate scrutiny was the appropriate standard of scrutiny in this case. He then pointed to the 4th Circuit's ruling in Masciandaro. However, unlike the judges in Woollard and Bateman, he read it differently, saying:

The defendants assert that the State of Illinois has significant governmental interests in protecting the safety of the public by restricting the availability and use of handguns in public. The Supreme Court has previously recognized that under intermediate scrutiny cases, the government’s interest need not be compelling. Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network, 519 U.S. 357, 376 (1997). As the Fourth Circuit noted in United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458, 473 (4th Cir. 2011), “[l]oaded firearms are surely more dangerous than unloaded firearms, as they could fire accidentally or be fired before a potential victim has the opportunity to flee.” The State of Illinois has determined that, for purposes of protection of its residents, a citizen’s interest in carrying a firearm in public should be subject to the governmental interest in safeguarding the welfare of the public at large from the inherent dangers in a loaded firearm. This Court FINDS that the state has, therefore, established a substantial interest in the regulations at issue.

It seems to me that Judge Stiehl was grasping for straws in this decision. It will be interesting to see what the 7th Circuit makes of his logic. 

The full opinion can be found here.

UPDATE: Prof. Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law and the Volokh Conspiracy examined the decision yesterday. He offers the opinion that Judge Stiehl misreads the 7th Circuit's Ezell opinion regarding intermediate scrutiny.

I’m not claiming that Ezell clearly selected “a more rigorous” standard than intermediate scrutiny for law-abiding-citizen Second Amendment claims — it may be that its selection of that standard is limited to restrictions that interfere with gun possession in the home. (The Ezell plaintiffs “claim[ed] that the range ban impermissibly burdens the core Second Amendment right to possess firearms at home for protection because the Ordinance conditions lawful possession on range training but makes it impossible to satisfy this condition anywhere in the city.”) But I am saying that Ezell did not select “intermediate scrutiny” as the general standard for law-abiding citizen Second Amendment claims outside the home, and the district court was mistaken in concluding that Ezell did so. Rather, the district court should have recognized that the issue had not been decided by the Seventh Circuit, and the court should have accepted the responsibility for itself making the choice, rather than asserting that the choice was made for it.

Motion For Injunction Sought In NRA's Illinois Case

I meant to post this on Friday but didn't. A day after the Second Amendment Foundation filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in their case against Illinois, Moore v. Madigan, the NRA filed a similar motion in their case against Illinois. Both of these motions came after the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found against Chicago and ordered a preliminary injunction against the range ban in Ezell v. Chicago.

The Memorandum for the Motion for a Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction can be found here.

NRA Files a Motion for an Immediate End to Illinois’ Ban on Right-to-Carry

Friday, July 08, 2011

Fairfax, Va. -- The National Rifle Association (NRA) is filing a motion for an injunction asking the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to immediately strike down Illinois’ complete and total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home or place of business.

This week, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that any violation of the Second Amendment constitutes irreparable harm – a factor needed to receive a preliminary injunction on NRA’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Illinois statute prohibiting carriage.

The NRA filed a lawsuit, Shepard v. Madigan, on May 13 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The lead plaintiff is church treasurer Mary Shepard; joining her is the Illinois State Rifle Association, the NRA’s state affiliate.

Because Illinois statutes prohibit carrying handguns, they infringe on the right of the people, including Mrs. Shepard, members of the ISRA and other law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and are thus null and void.

Stephen Halbrook On The Illinois Suits

Mary Shepard - Victim Of A Thug And Chicago Politicians

Mary Shepard is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit brought by the National Rifle Association and the Illinois State Rifle Association against the State of Illinois for denying Ms. Shepard the right to defend herself.

If there was ever a plaintiff who could make the case for needing to defend oneself with a firearm, it is Mary Shepard. Back in 2009 when she was 69 years old, she and 76 year old Leona Mount were the victims of a vicious beating attack. They were attacked by Willis Bates as he was burglarizing the Anna (IL) First Baptist Church where both ladies worked. The Associate Baptist Press gives this description of their injuries:

Arrest warrants claim that Bates repeatedly kicked the heads and bodies of Shepherd, the church treasurer, and Mount, a maintenance worker, before getting away with less than $600.

Both women were taken by ambulance to Union County Hospital in Anna and airlifted to St. Francis Medical Center in Cape Girardeau, Mo. Shepard remained there, while Mount was transferred to St. Louis University Hospital in St. Louis. Both women are expected to recover, a fact that church members are calling a miracle.

Shepard's injuries included a skull fracture, concussion and a possible broken bone in her right cheek. She was moved from the trauma unit to the ICU for observation and later transferred to a regular room. She has since been released from the hospital and is recuperating at home.

Surgery was scheduled Oct. 8 for Mount to begin to repair a broken nose, numerous facial fractures, jaw fractures and a fractured palate. Medical staff at St. Louis University told family members the injuries were like nothing they had ever seen. Despite that, she reportedly suffered no damage to her brain or eyes.

The video above is a report from WSIL Channel 3 back in October 2009 announcing Bates' arrest. Bates was given a 23 year sentence for two counts of attempted murder. He had previously served 7 years in Illinois prisons for residential burglary. Here is his Illinois Department of Corrections rap sheet including a current picture.

Even before this horrific beating, Mary Shepard, now aged 71, had obtained concealed carry permits from the states of Pennsylvania and Florida. According to IllinoisCarry, Ms. Shepard had taken five firearms training courses including Personal Protection Outside the Home. However, because Illinois law forbids concealed or open carry, she was unarmed when attacked by 6'4", 240 lb. psychopath Willis Bates. Ms. Shepard discusses the attack, her injuries, the aftermath, and her firearms training which if she was allowed to carry for self-defense could have prevented these horrible injuries in an video made for IllinoisCarry.




The Cook County politicians who kept Mary Shepard defenseless in the face of the attack by Willis Bates should be forced to watch this video. Of course that is a futile hope but perhaps one day - whether by court order or by legislation - the good people of Illinois will be allowed to protect themselves in public with a firearm.

Shepard v. Madigan: The NRA-ISRA Challenge To Ban On Carrying Firearms

The National Rifle Association and the Illinois State Rifle Association filed suit today on behalf of Mary Shepard challenging the State of Illinois' ban on the carrying of firearms for self-defense. As I posted earlier, the Second Amendment Foundation filed suit yesterday in Illinois with a similar challenge. Fortunately, the NRA suit is filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois while the SAF suit was filed in the Centeral District of Illinois. Therefore, the cases cannot be combined.

The release from the NRA-ILA announcing the case is below.

Friday, May 13, 2011

Fairfax, Va. -- The National Rifle Association is funding and supporting a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of Illinois’ complete and total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home. The case, filed today in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, is Shepard v. Madigan. The lead plaintiff is church treasurer Mary Shepard; joining her is the Illinois State Rifle Association, the NRA’s state affiliate.

Mary Shepard is an Illinois resident and a trained gun owner with no criminal record, who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun in two other states. Because Illinois remains the only state that completely prohibits all law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home, Mary Shepard also became a crime victim. While working as the treasurer of her church, Mrs. 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. Mrs. Shepard and her co-worker were lucky to survive, as each of them suffered major injuries to the head, neck and upper body. Mrs. Shepard’s injuries required extensive surgery and physical therapy.

“Mary Shepard isn't just a victim of the violent criminal who attacked her," said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. "She is also a victim of anti self-defense activists in the Illinois legislature who have consistently refused to recognize that good people have the right to protect themselves when they go about their everyday business. We're pleased that the legislature has come closer this year than ever before to changing the law, but close isn't good enough for Mary Shepard and the thousands of other Illinois residents who are prohibited by statute from defending themselves outside the home."

Because Illinois statutes prohibit the right to keep and bear arms and the ability to carry handguns in Illinois, they infringe on the right of the people, including Mrs. Shepard, members of the ISRA and other law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and are thus null and void.

Cox concluded: "In its historic Heller and McDonald decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. Mary Shepard's story highlights the need for law-abiding citizens to be able to fully exercise their Second Amendment rights. Whether through the legislature or through the courts, we won't rest until that happens."