PDA

View Full Version : IL: NRA sues IL over "No Issue"/CCW ban


Paladin
07-11-2011, 12:34 PM
Last Fri, a day after the SAF's lawsuit, "the National Rifle Association asked a federal judge in Southern Illinois to immediately declare it unconstitutional."

Excellent short article w/info on other RKBA lawsuits filed against IL.

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/illinois-gun-concealed-carry-lawsuit-nra-unconstitutional-legal-lawsuit-court-20110708

Shady
07-11-2011, 12:36 PM
soooo when is the nra going to do this in LA ?

Paladin
07-11-2011, 12:37 PM
I know Hawai'i is de jure "May Issue", but de facto "No Issue." Could/should something like this get filed in Hawai'i using Ezell as persuasive authority?

timdps
07-11-2011, 12:45 PM
So why is the NRA filing a "nearly identical" suit?

Bandwagon?

soooo when is the nra going to do this in LA ?

IL has a COMPLETE ban on carry, no CCW, no open carry and is currently the only state with this ban. Should be an easy win.

Big thread on the similar SAF suit is here:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=452974

Tim

Paladin
07-11-2011, 1:01 PM
So why is the NRA filing a "nearly identical" suit?

Bandwagon?
IIRC, they both had previously filed lawsuits in IL in two separate districts.

I think it is GREAT the both SAF and the NRA are nailing the antis in IL w/these lawsuits. As long as they're filed by competent attorneys, the more lawsuits the better. You never know how these things get change on their way up the judiciary. Remember what happened to Parker to transform it into Heller? Best not to put all your eggs into one lawsuit or plaintiff.

Plus, it turns up the political pressure on the legislature too and gets more MSM coverage about CCWs.

All in all "a good thing" IMO.

wildhawker
07-11-2011, 2:18 PM
This is a *total* bandwagon case; look closely at the plaintiffs.

NRA, once again wishing it were as good as Alan Gura... :rolleyes:

-Brandon

IIRC, they both had previously filed lawsuits in IL in two separate districts.

I think it is GREAT the both SAF and the NRA are nailing the antis in IL w/these lawsuits. As long as they're filed by competent attorneys, the more lawsuits the better. You never know how these things get change on their way up the judiciary. Remember what happened to Parker to transform it into Heller? Best not to put all your eggs into one lawsuit or plaintiff.

Plus, it turns up the political pressure on the legislature too and gets more MSM coverage about CCWs.

All in all "a good thing" IMO.

Knuckle Dragger
07-11-2011, 2:47 PM
This is a *total* bandwagon case; look closely at the plaintiffs.

NRA, once again wishing it were as good as Alan Gura... :rolleyes:

-Brandon

The NRA, once again making a pathetic attempt to jump in front of the parade.

Paladin
07-11-2011, 3:07 PM
This is a *total* bandwagon case; look closely at the plaintiffs.

NRA, once again wishing it were as good as Alan Gura... :rolleyes:

-Brandon
Wow. Sorry to hear this. Do you think any harm will come from them doing this?

wildhawker
07-11-2011, 3:07 PM
Wow. Sorry to hear this. Do you think any harm will come from them doing this?

There are always unintended consequences to action.

Connor P Price
07-11-2011, 3:21 PM
Wow. Sorry to hear this. Do you think any harm will come from them doing this?

There are always unintended consequences to action.

Exactly. Even if the unintended consequences aren't directly harmful, its a waste of resources. Litigating the same thing in the same state just means that the gun rights community is spending twice the money for the same effect. Even putting aside the bandwagon arguments, and even if there are no problems that are created as a result of the legal action, its just not an efficient use of funding.

dbldblu
07-11-2011, 3:25 PM
Litigating the same thing in the same state just means that the gun rights community is spending twice the money for the same effect.

On the other hand, the State of Illinois will have to pay twice as much in attorneys fees.

WTSGDYBBR
07-11-2011, 3:27 PM
This is BS the NRA needs to take action in the state of California.

yellowfin
07-11-2011, 3:37 PM
Ever heard of redundant backup?

wildhawker
07-11-2011, 3:40 PM
Ever heard of redundant backup?

If you think that such is required or even correctly applies here, you're wildly wrong.

darkwater
07-11-2011, 3:44 PM
Dear NRA,

Alan's got this one in the bag. You know, like he did in McDonald, even though you took time away from his oral arguments on behalf of the case he filed and then took all the credit for his results. Please, spend your time and our money elsewhere. Trust him, and trust us, we're on the same team!

Signed,

An NRA Member

wash
07-11-2011, 3:51 PM
Can people here count to five?

The McDonald decision had five votes, four in the main opinion and one in the concurring opinion. The concurring opinion supported Privileges or Immunities incorporation. If Alan Gura had not argued for P or I incorporation (like NRAs Due Process only argument), we would have lost McDonald v. Chicago.

NRA almost screwed up last time and then they claimed victory without even mentioning Alan Gura or SAF.

NRAs "redundant backup" is more like adding multiple points of failure.

Davidwhitewolf
07-11-2011, 5:55 PM
Anybody else notice this bit in the OP's linked news article? (http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/illinois-gun-concealed-carry-lawsuit-nra-unconstitutional-legal-lawsuit-court-201107088)

FOX Chicago News has counted at least 7 pending lawsuits filed by various arms of the gun lobby, seeking eek not only to legalize the concealed carrying of handguns, but also to require the City of Chicago to allow residents to register semi-automatic weapons, what critics call assault weapons.

I love the presumably inadvertent "eek" :43:

mdimeo
07-11-2011, 10:15 PM
Wow. Sorry to hear this. Do you think any harm will come from them doing this?

So far, just about every NRA case has been a little bit screwed up. Nothing fatal yet, but... I wish they'd stick to politics (where they are fantastically effective and frankly indispensable), and leave the litigation strategy to Gura and SAF.

wildhawker
07-11-2011, 10:19 PM
So far, just about every NRA case has been a little bit screwed up. Nothing fatal yet, but... I wish they'd stick to politics (where they are fantastically effective and frankly indispensable), and leave the litigation strategy to Gura and SAF.

I wish they'ed just be really effective at politics.

How late were the last CA ratings?

Funtimes
07-11-2011, 11:26 PM
I know Hawai'i is de jure "May Issue", but de facto "No Issue." Could/should something like this get filed in Hawai'i using Ezell as persuasive authority?

Maybe we can find out in "two weeks." No really!

hoffmang
07-11-2011, 11:39 PM
Maybe we can find out in "two weeks." No really!

A bit more actual resolution on Nordyke is required first.

-Gene

Maestro Pistolero
07-11-2011, 11:40 PM
I know Hawai'i is de jure "May Issue", but de facto "No Issue." Could/should something like this get filed in Hawai'i using Ezell as persuasive authority?

HI will be taken care of once the 9th circuit gets tuned up by the high court.

Funtimes
07-11-2011, 11:46 PM
A bit more actual resolution on Nordyke is required first.

-Gene

I'd appreciate you contacting me Gene if possible.

HI will be taken care of once the 9th circuit gets tuned up by the high court.

We feel certain there are provisions of our law that will not stand, regardless of the venue or opinion by the 9th. Just under Peruta, Richards, and the current Nordyke rulings some of our laws will fail.

wildhawker
07-12-2011, 12:02 AM
I'd appreciate you contacting me Gene if possible.

We feel certain there are provisions of our law that will not stand, regardless of the venue or opinion by the 9th. Just under Peruta, Richards, and the current Nordyke rulings some of our laws will fail.

If there's a district court in HI that couldn't thread a needle through Peruta et al, please call me.

-Brandon

press1280
07-12-2011, 12:56 AM
Can people here count to five?

The McDonald decision had five votes, four in the main opinion and one in the concurring opinion. The concurring opinion supported Privileges or Immunities incorporation. If Alan Gura had not argued for P or I incorporation (like NRAs Due Process only argument), we would have lost McDonald v. Chicago.

NRA almost screwed up last time and then they claimed victory without even mentioning Alan Gura or SAF.

NRAs "redundant backup" is more like adding multiple points of failure.

I don't think Thomas would have sided with the antis simply because P or I was not on the table. He did agree RKBA was fundamental, but preferred P or I over DP.

Southwest Chuck
07-12-2011, 5:29 AM
So far, just about every NRA case has been a little bit screwed up. Nothing fatal yet, but... I wish they'd stick to politics (where they are fantastically effective and frankly indispensable), and leave the litigation strategy to Gura and SAF.

Seems like the NRA should join the bandwagon by being part of SAF's lawsuits by being a financial backer to them. That way they have the advantage of P.R. (saying "The NRA along with SAF are funding this challenge jointly" rather than wasting money duplicating work. They need to play nice in the sandbox and play SMART !

Fyathyrio
07-12-2011, 6:04 AM
Seems like the NRA, in a redundant Parker v Cali, was the one winner out of three cases that struck own AB 962...it's not like they're totally ineffective.

Trailboss60
07-12-2011, 6:15 AM
A lot of excellent points made...The SAF has always welcomed the NRA in it's lawsuits, and the NRA seems to always demand that they get the credit for the work of others...them boycotting SAF's annual meeting was nothing short of childish, based on their recent history I see no benefit in this latest lawsuit.

I am an NRA supporter, btw.

Funtimes
07-12-2011, 6:17 AM
I do get a little laugh every time I see NRA file a suit, just a couple days after SAF lol.

wash
07-12-2011, 8:39 AM
I don't think Thomas would have sided with the antis simply because P or I was not on the table. He did agree RKBA was fundamental, but preferred P or I over DP.
Your theory might be correct but still NRA had nothing to do with winning McDonald v. Chicago.

That is why NRA copycat lawsuits are bad.

darkwater
07-12-2011, 9:28 AM
Seems like the NRA, in a redundant Parker v Cali, was the one winner out of three cases that struck own AB 962...it's not like they're totally ineffective.

At least there the three separate cases came at AB 962 from three different angles or arguments: unconstitutionally vague vs. interfering with interstate commerce vs. violating federal shipping laws.

Connor P Price
07-12-2011, 11:28 AM
At least there the three separate cases came at AB 962 from three different angles or arguments: unconstitutionally vague vs. interfering with interstate commerce vs. violating federal shipping laws.

Correct. They weren't redundant so much as just a three pronged attack.

nicki
07-12-2011, 12:33 PM
Most NRA members are not "gun rights activists", but they will notice if someone else is running winning court cases which is something the NRA can't risk because it is obvious that people will question what they are paying membership dues for if someone other than the NRA is winning court battles.

We separate Politics and Legal, most people don't.

The SAF may not have a monopoly on filing lawsuits, but as a organizational courtesy and to keep gun rights activists from internal fighting, I would hope that the NRA would coordinate lawsuits and publically give credit where it is due.

Nicki.