Jump to content


Photo

SAF SUES ILLINOIS OVER BAN ON CARRYING GUNS FOR SELF-DEFENSE


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
128 replies to this topic

#121 FF17

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Joined: 24-January 11

Posted 13 May 2011 - 08:33 PM

I asked in another topic, but didn,t get a respone. How long do these types of cases take after they are filed usually. A couple of years, or a bit faster?

#122 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,772 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 13 May 2011 - 08:49 PM

I think this two-suit strategy might actually be a very wise approach. I was reading John Richardson's blog (No lawyers, only guns and money) and he noted that since the NRA suit was filed in the southern IL district court, and the SAF suit was filed in the central IL district court, these two cases cannot be combined.

That fact may turn out to be good in the end ... each case as it moves up will be subject to different vagaries of argument, different briefings, different panels, etc. Ultimately, I suspect that raises the overall chances of success. Moreover, defending against two will cost the state more $$, which always comes into play in these cases.

Ultimately (regardless of how the courts rule), how carry proceeds in IL will be up to the legislature to define and contour ... and two cases bring more leverage when working with the legislature.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#123 SAF

  • Members
  • 20 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 11

Posted 13 May 2011 - 09:15 PM

[quote name='Silver Guardian' date='13 May 2011 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1305329881' post='271672']
[quote name='bob' date='13 May 2011 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1305329128' post='271666']
Accoding to the SAF website:
[quote]The Second Amendment Foundation, founded in 1974 by Alan Gottlieb, is a tax-exempt Washington-state non-profit corporation organized under 501 (3) of the IRS code. It has been a pioneer in innovative defense of the right to keep and bear arms, through its publications, public education programs and legal action. To fulfill its purpose, the Foundation maintains a headquarters office in Bellevue, WA, and a publishing office in Buffalo, NY.
[/quote]

According to the IRS:
[quote]

To be tax-exempt under section 501(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

[/quote]
[/quote]


Does this mean donations would be tax deductible?
[/quote]

Yes. :clap:

[quote]Organizations described in section 501©(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501©(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170. http://www.irs.gov/c...d=96099,00.html[/quote]

As always, please check with your tax professional regarding your own situation. We do not give out tax advice.

#124 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,153 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 13 May 2011 - 09:38 PM

Being unfamiliar with the case and their plaintiffs at this point, my concern is that they could jump in with a weak case that gets knocked down and establishes something that will be even harder to overcome.


I have the utmost faith the SAF had this planned. They do not bring poor cases forward.



We should help them by proofing it for them.

1. Hiram Grau is the superintendant of the ISP. Not Patrick Keen.
2. Para. 20 mistakenly refers to AG Keen, instead of AG Madigan.

Anyone notice any other issues?

Or has Grau not taken office yet?

Personally, I think it may turn out that a little bit of cooperation goes a long way in this kind of thing, while a little bit of competition goes farther.

The NRA is pretty good at political efforts. Let them spend most of their effort attacking that angle and just dabble in litigation.

Let the proven litigators litigate.

In any case, I would not get too excited just yet. There is no way to know just where this is headed.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#125 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,229 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 13 May 2011 - 09:47 PM

Moreover, defending against two will cost the state more $$, which always comes into play in these cases.



Maybe they will get the lawyer Chicago used, he sounds expensive.
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#126 SAF

  • Members
  • 20 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 11

Posted 14 May 2011 - 10:01 AM

Being unfamiliar with the case and their plaintiffs at this point, my concern is that they could jump in with a weak case that gets knocked down and establishes something that will be even harder to overcome.


I have the utmost faith the SAF had this planned. They do not bring poor cases forward.



We should help them by proofing it for them.

1. Hiram Grau is the superintendant of the ISP. Not Patrick Keen.
2. Para. 20 mistakenly refers to AG Keen, instead of AG Madigan.

Anyone notice any other issues?

Or has Grau not taken office yet?

Personally, I think it may turn out that a little bit of cooperation goes a long way in this kind of thing, while a little bit of competition goes farther.

The NRA is pretty good at political efforts. Let them spend most of their effort attacking that angle and just dabble in litigation.

Let the proven litigators litigate.

In any case, I would not get too excited just yet. There is no way to know just where this is headed.


Yes, we're aware.

We had the complaint originally back when Keen was still in office. When we went to put it into action this week, somehow nobody caught that. :clap: It will be fixed next week.

#127 Gbbear

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 50 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 14 May 2011 - 11:16 AM

Hello everyone and thank you for your support!

We just wanted to jump in with two responses to issues posed here:

1. Regarding lobbying: SAF is a 501©3 non-profit. As such, IRS regulations prohibit us from engaging in lobbying or taking a position on legislation and it is not within our mission. There are many great organizations engaged in that side of the gun rights battle, but despite the wishes of many we simply cannot enter that field.

2. Regarding NRA: Our attorneys spent many hours talking with NRA in recent days.

For those that haven't seen it yet, here is a copy of the complaint: http://saf.org/legal...ILcomplaint.pdf


I noticed on Page five under "Defendants that para. 20 refers to Attorney General Lisa Madigan and then in the same paragraph refers to Attorney General Keen.

Hope this isn't anything of concern.


Sorry, missed the earlier post.

Edited by Gbbear, 14 May 2011 - 11:22 AM.


#128 SAF

  • Members
  • 20 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 11

Posted 16 May 2011 - 01:31 PM

While not related to this specific case, the following illustrates the benefits of the many gun rights group working together and building off of the others successes. In 1994 SAF sued LA, in 1995 that suit succeeded. Now, 16 years later, NRA and CRPA are jumping in and working to enforce the agreement that SAF made possible!


SAF THANKS NRA, CRPA FOR EFFORT TO ENFORCE ITS 1994 COURT VICTORY
For Immediate Release: 5/16/2011

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today publicly thanked the National Rifle Association and California Rifle & Pistol Association for sponsoring two new legal actions that seek enforcement of a case SAF won in 1994 against the City of Los Angeles regarding concealed carry permits.

The case, Lake v City of Los Angeles, resulted in a judgment against the city, which had to issue a check to SAF on April 11, 1995 for the amount of $50,000. And in the case, Assenza v City of Los Angeles the Second Amendment Foundation was given the right to nominate future appointments to the created advisory review panel for contested concealed carry license applications.

“We still have an enlarged photocopy of that check on our wall at the SAF office,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “The city has continually failed to live up to the court order that requires the Los Angeles Police Department to issue applications for concealed weapons permits.

“Frankly,” he continued, “it is disappointing, though not surprising, that the LAPD has fallen back on its old habits, as CRPA noted this morning when it announced the two legal actions. I am actually delighted that our friends at CRPA and NRA have jumped into this. It’s been our pleasure to work with both organizations in the past, and since we won the original case 16 years ago, this ought to be a legal slam-dunk.

“The fact that new actions had to be initiated at all,” Gottlieb observed, “demonstrates the necessity for continued vigilance against anti-gun bureaucracies. How many times does a court have to issue an order before a government entity gets the message?

“Today’s announcement also makes it clear that even after SAF’s Supreme Court victory last year in the McDonald case against Chicago, the firearms community still has enormous challenges,” Gottlieb stated. “We’ve been so focused on filing federal cases in New Jersey, North Carolina, New York, Maryland, Washington, D.C. and elsewhere, and just this last week in Virginia and Illinois – where the NRA has also filed a subsequent lawsuit – that realizing someone we beat in 1995 had to be reminded of their obligations at this late date is not only surprising, it’s kind of annoying.

“SAF is determined to win back firearms rights one lawsuit at a time, if necessary,” he concluded. “Evidently, it is sometimes necessary to do it over and over again.”


http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=358

#129 SAF

  • Members
  • 20 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 11

Posted 20 May 2011 - 10:34 AM

A warm welcome to Illinois Carry, Peggy Fechter and Jon Maier as a plaintiffs in this case. Many thanks, especially to Molly B., for all of her help!

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.”


http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=359