Jump to content


Photo

Winbigler v. Warren Co. Housing Authority - SAF suit over public housing gun ban (Illinois)


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#1 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,655 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 04 April 2012 - 12:34 PM

Received via email. The good folks at SAF are really going great guns (no pun intended)!


SAF SUES OVER PUBLIC HOUSING GUN BAN IN WARREN CO, ILLINOIS

BELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit against the Warren County, Illinois Housing Authority, seeking an injunction against the WCHA's ban on personally-owned firearms by residents of government-subsidized housing.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Ronald G. Winbigler, a resident of Costello Terrace in Monmouth. Mr. Winbigler is a physically disabled former police officer who wants to have a handgun in his residence for personal protection. The lawsuit seeks equitable, declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the WCHA ban. It was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Rock Island Division.

"Ron Winbigler faces the same dilemma so many other residents of government-subsidized public housing face," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. "He wants a firearm for self-defense, but he risks losing a place to live because of bureaucratic political correctness. As a police officer, he consistently trained and repeatedly qualified in the safe use and handling of firearms, and because of his experience, he understands the threat of crime."

"People do not lose their Second Amendment rights just because they are of limited means," added attorney David Sigale, who represents SAF and Winbigler in this action. "Nobody wishes to be in need of financial assistance, but it is an indignity to make the waiver of constitutional rights a condition of government-subsidized housing. We are confident the Courts will hold that those residents have the same right to defend their families and themselves as everyone else."

"It is astonishing that in Illinois of all places, government entities would continue to interfere with the Second Amendment rights of citizens, after our Supreme Court victory in the McDonald case almost two years ago," Gottlieb said. "That case nullified Chicago's handgun ban and extended Second Amendment protections against infringement by state and local governments and their agencies. Mr. Winbigler and people like him deserve the full protection of the Constitution, especially if they live in subsidized public housing."

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#2 pyre400

    Political opinions expressed are always my own.

  • Admin
  • 7,727 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 09

Posted 04 April 2012 - 12:36 PM

:headbang1:

__________________
R[∃vo˩]ution


#3 wilessiuc

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 11

Posted 04 April 2012 - 02:38 PM

I have been wrong before, and I realize we live in Illinois, but I don' think there is any way an outright ban on firearms in one's own residence, even if it is public housing, can pass constitutional muster.
"To Disarm The People - That Was The Best And Most Effectual Way To Enslave Them" - George Mason

ONE STATE - ONE LAW

#4 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 04 April 2012 - 03:20 PM

I have been wrong before, and I realize we live in Illinois, but I don' think there is any way an outright ban on firearms in one's own residence, even if it is public housing, can pass constitutional muster.


"Hearth and home" is the most sacred of places to be safe and protected......

Regards, Drd
Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#5 kermit315

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Joined: 11-November 09

Posted 04 April 2012 - 05:07 PM

Wow, my parents live 15 minutes from there, right on the warren/mercer line.

Interesting.
Posted Image

#6 Indigo

    Just another silver-haired devil

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,065 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 11

Posted 04 April 2012 - 08:39 PM

I thought the issue of gun ownership in public housing had been settled several years ago with a number of federal suits. Now, after McDonald, this should be a slam-dunk and another payday for SAF. What are they thinking down in Warren County?
  • They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it’s not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance

#7 frankw438

    Starfleet Security

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,482 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 09

Posted 13 September 2012 - 04:59 PM

I've been following this one for a while. Warren County Housing authority filed a response to the complaint here:

ANSWER to 1 Complaint AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by Teresa Greenstreet, Warren County Housing Authority.(Vanderlaan, Lori) (Entered: 05/29/2012

One of the things that stuck out when I read their answer was the following:



Sixth Affirmative Defense – Not a Qualified Individual
Plaintiff, Ronald Winbigler, is not a competent and responsible individual for purposes of
owning and/or possessing a firearm, and is unqualified to own firearms in his home for any
purpose, whether lawful or otherwise.



Mr. Winbigler is a former police officer and currently holds a valid FOID card. Unless they have evidence of his incompetence, this type of accusation could come back to bite them, especially if they have no proof.

In July,a magistrate judge scheduled the trial for NOVEMBER 2013. More than a year away. That's disappointing.

-- Frank

NRA Life Member - NRA Basic Pistol Instructor - NRA PPIH Instructor - NRA PPOH Instructor - USPSA Range Officer - IL Firearms Concealed Carry Instructor - ITWT Club Member #438

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012


#8 frankw438

    Starfleet Security

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,482 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 09

Posted 13 September 2012 - 05:03 PM

Mods: Should this thread be moved to the Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion forum and renamed Winbigler v. Warren County Housing Authority?

Thanks!

NRA Life Member - NRA Basic Pistol Instructor - NRA PPIH Instructor - NRA PPOH Instructor - USPSA Range Officer - IL Firearms Concealed Carry Instructor - ITWT Club Member #438

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012


#9 vezpa

    Illinoiscarry.com Funnyman

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,684 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 13 September 2012 - 05:08 PM

"It is astonishing that in Illinois of all places, government entities would continue to interfere with the Second Amendment rights of citizens, after our Supreme Court victory in the McDonald case almost two years ago," Gottlieb said. "That case nullified Chicago's handgun ban and extended Second Amendment protections against infringement by state and local governments and their agencies.


Legislatures in Illinois and Chicago sure forgot about the word "infringement" in the decision. Why is this so difficult to see?
Stand Your Ground

#10 Uncle Harley

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,190 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted 13 September 2012 - 05:55 PM

"People do not lose their Second Amendment rights just because they are of limited means"



Sure they do, at least in IL. I would like to see a homless guy living in a cardboard box try to excercise his right to bear arms in his " home"

#11 Gunslinger

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 575 posts
  • Joined: 28-March 12

Posted 13 September 2012 - 05:56 PM

"People do not lose their Second Amendment rights just because they are of limited means"



Sure they do, at least in IL. I would like to see a homless guy living in a cardboard box try to excercise his right to bear arms in his " home"


I have wondered that myself. How does someone without a home own a weapon?
The Second Amendment IS my concealed weapons permit.... Period!-Ted Nugent

Example of Combat Logic:

Marine #1-"You can't just add zeros to the end of a 6 digit grid to make a 10 digit...."
Marine #2-"Sure you can, the GPS accepted it and now we are on our way!"

#12 borgranta

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,554 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 13 September 2012 - 06:54 PM

Received via email. The good folks at SAF are really going great guns (no pun intended)!


SAF SUES OVER PUBLIC HOUSING GUN BAN IN WARREN CO, ILLINOIS

BELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit against the Warren County, Illinois Housing Authority, seeking an injunction against the WCHA's ban on personally-owned firearms by residents of government-subsidized housing.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Ronald G. Winbigler, a resident of Costello Terrace in Monmouth. Mr. Winbigler is a physically disabled former police officer who wants to have a handgun in his residence for personal protection. The lawsuit seeks equitable, declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the WCHA ban. It was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Rock Island Division.

"Ron Winbigler faces the same dilemma so many other residents of government-subsidized public housing face," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. "He wants a firearm for self-defense, but he risks losing a place to live because of bureaucratic political correctness. As a police officer, he consistently trained and repeatedly qualified in the safe use and handling of firearms, and because of his experience, he understands the threat of crime."

"People do not lose their Second Amendment rights just because they are of limited means," added attorney David Sigale, who represents SAF and Winbigler in this action. "Nobody wishes to be in need of financial assistance, but it is an indignity to make the waiver of constitutional rights a condition of government-subsidized housing. We are confident the Courts will hold that those residents have the same right to defend their families and themselves as everyone else."

"It is astonishing that in Illinois of all places, government entities would continue to interfere with the Second Amendment rights of citizens, after our Supreme Court victory in the McDonald case almost two years ago," Gottlieb said. "That case nullified Chicago's handgun ban and extended Second Amendment protections against infringement by state and local governments and their agencies. Mr. Winbigler and people like him deserve the full protection of the Constitution, especially if they live in subsidized public housing."

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

since it is government funded it is a government entity directly violating his civil rights
The 2nd amendment was intended not only for protecting against tyranny but also enforcing and protecting the rule of law and the sovereignty of the states and the country as a whole which includes repelling invasions. If the citizens were not disarmed in New Orleans after Katrina than the lawlessnes would have been either reduced or eliminated.

#13 GT1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 654 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 12

Posted 15 September 2012 - 10:29 AM

Interesting, I happen to live in IL public housing(Rockford) and had no real issues getting permission to have firearms in my apartment(Nothing that bothered me, anyway. I did have to declare them.).

Someone in Warren county has a case of the stupids, sounds like.
gun totin' liberal
NRA
All fundamental liberties are interrelated. When you weaken one, you weaken them all, even if it is not immediately apparent to the short-sighted and fearful.


#14 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Moderator
  • 8,225 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 15 September 2012 - 11:40 AM

Needing permission sounds like a problem to me.

Needing to declare them, too.
.
.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Link to Livestream Blueroom Events Page

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

#15 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,495 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 15 September 2012 - 05:42 PM

Needing permission sounds like a problem to me.

Needing to declare them, too.


I had the same thought !!

KINGS FCCL INSTRUCTION, INC.

Larry Kaitschuck

Cell: 815-739-9616

E-Mail: clubkchuck@sbcglobal.net


NRA Member
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Professional Firefighter / Paramedic

#16 kurt555gs

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,909 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 09

Posted 15 September 2012 - 06:11 PM

I think this is a very important case. It goes to the heart of "keep" of keep and bear arms.
Kurt on G+

#17 borgranta

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,554 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 15 September 2012 - 06:11 PM


Needing permission sounds like a problem to me.

Needing to declare them, too.


I had the same thought !!

How many people would know you have a gun after you declare it. It seems like a dangerous security risk to trust anyone with this knowledge especially with the excessive corruption in illinois. Declaring them is likely a scheme to supply criminals with a choice of guns to steal and line the corrupt official's pockets with bribes.

Edited by borgranta, 15 September 2012 - 06:24 PM.

The 2nd amendment was intended not only for protecting against tyranny but also enforcing and protecting the rule of law and the sovereignty of the states and the country as a whole which includes repelling invasions. If the citizens were not disarmed in New Orleans after Katrina than the lawlessnes would have been either reduced or eliminated.

#18 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,793 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 15 September 2012 - 07:58 PM

If the guy is a former PO, he might well be covered under LEOSA if he has bothered to follow the rules about such things.
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/

#19 oneshot

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,201 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 07

Posted 15 September 2012 - 08:01 PM

"People do not lose their Second Amendment rights just because they are of limited means"



Sure they do, at least in IL. I would like to see a homless guy living in a cardboard box try to excercise his right to bear arms in his " home"


That's a lawsuit I'd like to see, after we win I can start walking around in a cardboard box!

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


#20 junglebob

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,775 posts
  • Joined: 03-December 04

Posted 16 September 2012 - 07:04 AM

Reading the affirmative defense in post #7 makes me wonder. They say Mr. Winbigler is unqualified to own firearms in his home for any purpose lawful or otherwise. So how do you get qualified to own firearms for unlawful purposes?

This reminds me that I want to donate again to the Second Amendment Foundation.

Edited by junglebob, 16 September 2012 - 07:06 AM.

Disarming the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them. George Mason

Remember the 1991 Luby Cafeteria Massacre of the Unarmed (Kileen, Texas before Texas Concealed Carry) Do we need 23 people to die in a similar incident before we're allowed effective self defense?

Three school masacres have been stopped by civilians with firearms. Two with handguns and the third by a guy with a shotgun. (Pearl, Ms; Appalacian School of Law; Edinboro,Pa)

#21 GT1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 654 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 12

Posted 16 September 2012 - 10:35 PM

Needing permission sounds like a problem to me.

Needing to declare them, too.


Then you should not live in any rentable dwelling or apartment that stipulates so in the lease, seems simple enough for you.
Many leases have such stipulations, and government subsidized housing is probably at the forefront of such things.
It goes along with how much of and how many hazardous things the property owner wishes to limit you carrying into the place(There are a lot of stupid people out there doing many stupid things, things the owner does not wish to be liable for.).

Blame the lawyers(And the stupid people).

Edited by GT1, 16 September 2012 - 10:37 PM.

gun totin' liberal
NRA
All fundamental liberties are interrelated. When you weaken one, you weaken them all, even if it is not immediately apparent to the short-sighted and fearful.


#22 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,495 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 17 September 2012 - 07:12 AM


Needing permission sounds like a problem to me.

Needing to declare them, too.


Then you should not live in any rentable dwelling or apartment that stipulates so in the lease, seems simple enough for you.
Many leases have such stipulations, and government subsidized housing is probably at the forefront of such things.
It goes along with how much of and how many hazardous things the property owner wishes to limit you carrying into the place(There are a lot of stupid people out there doing many stupid things, things the owner does not wish to be liable for.).

Blame the lawyers(And the stupid people).


Since when is it OK, to stipulate away your constitutional rights ??

Edited by THE KING, 17 September 2012 - 07:12 AM.

KINGS FCCL INSTRUCTION, INC.

Larry Kaitschuck

Cell: 815-739-9616

E-Mail: clubkchuck@sbcglobal.net


NRA Member
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Professional Firefighter / Paramedic

#23 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 10,676 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 17 September 2012 - 07:25 AM

I think apartment rental/lease stipulations take advantage of those folks who cannot afford to rent or own their own house. Some folks can only afford the "affordable" housing and are caught in a catch-22 situation.

This type of infringement will be come to an end if we persevere in squashing it every time it raises its ugly head.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#24 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 10,676 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 17 September 2012 - 07:26 AM

Since when is it OK, to insist people stipulate away their constitutional rights ??


Fixed it for you!
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#25 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,495 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 17 September 2012 - 07:33 AM

Thanks Molly

KINGS FCCL INSTRUCTION, INC.

Larry Kaitschuck

Cell: 815-739-9616

E-Mail: clubkchuck@sbcglobal.net


NRA Member
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Professional Firefighter / Paramedic

#26 kurt555gs

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,909 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 09

Posted 17 September 2012 - 08:25 AM

What if an apartment lease came with a stipulation like " The leases will only vote for Democratic candidates while living here ". That would be the same thing.
Kurt on G+

#27 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Moderator
  • 8,225 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 17 September 2012 - 08:53 AM

I continue to be thankful for people who, like Mr. Winbigler, refuse to accept the status quo.
.
.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Link to Livestream Blueroom Events Page

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

#28 borgranta

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,554 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 17 September 2012 - 09:29 AM

I continue to be thankful for people who, like Mr. Winbigler, refuse to accept the status quo.

Winbigler will Win Big
The 2nd amendment was intended not only for protecting against tyranny but also enforcing and protecting the rule of law and the sovereignty of the states and the country as a whole which includes repelling invasions. If the citizens were not disarmed in New Orleans after Katrina than the lawlessnes would have been either reduced or eliminated.

#29 borgranta

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,554 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 17 September 2012 - 09:31 AM

What if an apartment lease came with a stipulation like " The leases will only vote for Democratic candidates while living here ". That would be the same thing.

A contract of any kind that breaks the law including constitutional law is legally invalid.

Edited by borgranta, 17 September 2012 - 09:32 AM.

The 2nd amendment was intended not only for protecting against tyranny but also enforcing and protecting the rule of law and the sovereignty of the states and the country as a whole which includes repelling invasions. If the citizens were not disarmed in New Orleans after Katrina than the lawlessnes would have been either reduced or eliminated.

#30 borgranta

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,554 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 17 September 2012 - 11:14 AM

If the guy is a former PO, he might well be covered under LEOSA if he has bothered to follow the rules about such things.

He might be covered under LEOSA but the housing authority is violating both state and federal laws already and LEOSA is simply another law they are violating in this case. Would they disarm active duty police offirs as well?

Edited by borgranta, 17 September 2012 - 11:24 AM.

The 2nd amendment was intended not only for protecting against tyranny but also enforcing and protecting the rule of law and the sovereignty of the states and the country as a whole which includes repelling invasions. If the citizens were not disarmed in New Orleans after Katrina than the lawlessnes would have been either reduced or eliminated.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users