

Moore vs IL Attorney General
#1
Posted 16 May 2011 - 09:28 AM
#2
Posted 19 May 2011 - 11:23 PM

Text of lawsuit:
SAF Lawsuit.pdf 177.43KB 1228 downloads
Congrats on Illinois Carry being added as plaintiffs in this case!!!
Don Moran
President
Illinois State Rifle Association
Admins, please move as required if I post this incorrectly!
#3
Posted 19 May 2011 - 11:37 PM

Yay guns!!! boooo anti-gunners!
#4
Posted 20 May 2011 - 04:33 AM
5 - Amended Complaint.pdf 46.86KB 591 downloads
Text of lawsuit:
SAF Lawsuit.pdf 177.43KB 1228 downloads
Congrats on Illinois Carry being added as plaintiffs in this case!!!
Don Moran
President
Illinois State Rifle Association
Admins, please move as required if I post this incorrectly!
Indeed!!!
#5
Posted 20 May 2011 - 07:35 AM
-Thomas Jefferson-
Now two flags fly above my land that really sum up how I feel. One is the colors that fly high and proud the red, the white, the blue. The other ones got a rattle snake with a simple statement made, don't tread on me, is what it says and I'll take that to my grave
-Aaron Lewis-
#6
Posted 20 May 2011 - 07:42 AM
I don't see in the breif where illinoiscarry.com is mentioned.
28 - 32
#7
Posted 20 May 2011 - 10:18 AM
#8
Posted 20 May 2011 - 10:36 AM
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
#9
Posted 20 May 2011 - 10:40 AM
Thank you. Its nice to be in such good company even if the circumstances could be a little better. I'm sure we'll get that fixed, though.A warm welcome to Illinois Carry...
.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link
Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. (Ephesians 4:31)
On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law. The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.
#10
Posted 20 May 2011 - 10:41 AM
against the offices of the Illinois Attorney General and Director of Illinois State Police.
Illinois Carry has always maintained that to restore and maintain our Second Amendment
rights efforts must include advancing the cause through legislative, electoral, and judicial means.
Illinois Carry is pleased to join in the judicial process.
Illinois Carry welcomes the SAF lawsuit along with another suit filed by the National Rifle
Association and the Illinois State Rifle Association on behalf of Mary Shepard, a concealed carry license holder who
was the victim of a violent assault.
Our hope is that together these cases will send a strong message to elected officials in Springfield,
Cook Co. and Chicago that if they refuse to restore our rights through the legislative process,
we will petition the courts for those rights.
Our thanks to Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation and Todd Vandermyde of the
National Rifle Association for their tireless efforts to restore the Second Amendment to
the good people of Illinois.
#11
Posted 20 May 2011 - 11:17 AM
Illinois Carry is honored to join the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) lawsuit
against the offices of the Illinois Attorney General and Director of Illinois State Police.
Illinois Carry has always maintained that to restore and maintain our Second Amendment
rights efforts must include advancing the cause through legislative, electoral, and judicial means.
Illinois Carry is pleased to join in the judicial process.
Illinois Carry welcomes the SAF lawsuit along with another suit filed by the National Rifle
Association and the Illinois State Rifle Association on behalf of Mary Shepard, a concealed carry license holder who
was the victim of a violent assault.
Our hope is that together these cases will send a strong message to elected officials in Springfield,
Cook Co. and Chicago that if they refuse to restore our rights through the legislative process,
we will petition the courts for those rights.
Our thanks to Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation and Todd Vandermyde of the
National Rifle Association for their tireless efforts to restore the Second Amendment to
the good people of Illinois.


I shoot with the best...Nikon and Colt
#12
Posted 20 May 2011 - 12:38 PM
Just wondering.
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776
Life Member NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF
#13
Posted 20 May 2011 - 01:07 PM
just my 2 cents...
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." (Winston Churchill).
#14
Posted 20 May 2011 - 01:27 PM
x2 !!!what about someone from cook county/chicago... i think that mite help. but also dont want to hold up the suit goin on...
just my 2 cents...
#15
Posted 20 May 2011 - 06:57 PM
#16
Posted 20 May 2011 - 07:17 PM
#17
Posted 22 May 2011 - 06:10 PM
the goal is to stay out of cook county and get better draw of judges
Duh, I hadn't thought about that. Rock on!!

Arms are the only true badge of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave. - Andrew Fletcher 1698
#18
Posted 27 May 2011 - 09:10 AM
#19
Posted 27 May 2011 - 12:07 PM
I can't claim to speak for Todd, but this is in Federal Court. The judges in the Central and Southern Districts of Illinois are probably a little more friendly to our cause than the federal judges in the Northern District of Illinois. The real challenge is the 7th Circuit Court, who decided McDonald v Chicago wrongly forcing the appeal to SCOTUS.Todd, Do we really believe that any other judge in any other county in Illinois will decide in our favor? And that Madigan etal will not appeal? This must get out of state and to SCOTUS to have any chance of being decided in our favor. Cook, Champaign, Pope or Pike, no big deal, it is a federal issue and the inclusion or exclusion of a resident of any county is so much posturing and pretension. The facts are important, the players not so much. Lets plan for the long haul!
yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .
#20
Posted 27 May 2011 - 12:10 PM
When you say "friendly to our cause" I believe you are saying they are more understanding of the Constitution, right?I can't claim to speak for Todd, but this is in Federal Court. The judges in the Central and Southern Districts of Illinois are probably a little more friendly to our cause than the federal judges in the Northern District of Illinois. The real challenge is the 7th Circuit Court, who decided McDonald v Chicago wrongly forcing the appeal to SCOTUS.Todd, Do we really believe that any other judge in any other county in Illinois will decide in our favor? And that Madigan etal will not appeal? This must get out of state and to SCOTUS to have any chance of being decided in our favor. Cook, Champaign, Pope or Pike, no big deal, it is a federal issue and the inclusion or exclusion of a resident of any county is so much posturing and pretension. The facts are important, the players not so much. Lets plan for the long haul!
YOUR WALLET, the only place Democrats care to drill
#21
Posted 27 May 2011 - 12:20 PM
Or, perhaps they simply just know how to read ...When you say "friendly to our cause" I believe you are saying they are more understanding of the Constitution, right?I can't claim to speak for Todd, but this is in Federal Court. The judges in the Central and Southern Districts of Illinois are probably a little more friendly to our cause than the federal judges in the Northern District of Illinois. The real challenge is the 7th Circuit Court, who decided McDonald v Chicago wrongly forcing the appeal to SCOTUS.Todd, Do we really believe that any other judge in any other county in Illinois will decide in our favor? And that Madigan etal will not appeal? This must get out of state and to SCOTUS to have any chance of being decided in our favor. Cook, Champaign, Pope or Pike, no big deal, it is a federal issue and the inclusion or exclusion of a resident of any county is so much posturing and pretension. The facts are important, the players not so much. Lets plan for the long haul!
#22
Posted 27 May 2011 - 12:36 PM
#23
Posted 27 May 2011 - 04:37 PM
Bingo!Judges a suppose to fopllow the Consitution and the law. But they bring their beliefs with them to the bench. You can believe the 2Ais an individual right, or believe it is a collective right and find the documents to support your position. Get a judge that is a bit more conservitive and already believes like we do, they are more apt to be from the southern part of the state
yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .
#24
Posted 07 July 2011 - 02:58 PM
For Immediate Release: 7/7/2011
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.”
Motion is here: http://ia600603.us.a....52015.13.0.pdf
Memo Supporting Motion is here: http://ia600603.us.a....52015.14.0.pdf
#25
Posted 07 July 2011 - 03:04 PM

NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Pistol and PPITH Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
ISRA Member
Registered Illinois Concealed Carry Firearms Instructor
#26
Posted 07 July 2011 - 03:09 PM
" Never argue with an idiot, passers by won't be able to tell you apart "- Grandpa
#27
Posted 07 July 2011 - 03:16 PM
#28
Posted 07 July 2011 - 03:23 PM
IL Concealed Carry Firearm Instructor
#29
Posted 07 July 2011 - 03:27 PM
" Never argue with an idiot, passers by won't be able to tell you apart "- Grandpa
#30
Posted 07 July 2011 - 03:31 PM