44 replies to this topic

[GarandFan]

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.

[pyre400]

[wilessiuc]

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.

[dmefford]

wilessiuc, on 04 April 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

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

[kermit315]

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

Interesting.

[Indigo]

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?

[frankw438]

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:

Quote

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

[frankw438]

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

Thanks!

[vezpa]

GarandFan, on 04 April 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

"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?

[Uncle Harley]

"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"

[Gunslinger]

Uncle Harley, on 13 September 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

"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?

[borgranta]

GarandFan, on 04 April 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

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

[GT1]

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.

[mauserme]

Needing permission sounds like a problem to me.

Needing to declare them, too.

[THE KING]

mauserme, on 15 September 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

Needing permission sounds like a problem to me.

Needing to declare them, too.

I had the same thought !!

[kurt555gs]

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

[borgranta]

THE KING, on 15 September 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

mauserme, on 15 September 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

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.

[bob]

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.

[oneshot]

Uncle Harley, on 13 September 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

"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!

[junglebob]

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.

[GT1]

mauserme, on 15 September 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

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.

[THE KING]

GT1, on 16 September 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

mauserme, on 15 September 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

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.

[Molly B.]

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.

[Molly B.]

THE KING, on 17 September 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:

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

Fixed it for you!

[THE KING]

Thanks Molly

[kurt555gs]

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.

[mauserme]

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

[borgranta]

mauserme, on 17 September 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

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

Winbigler will Win Big

[borgranta]

kurt555gs, on 17 September 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

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.

[borgranta]

bob, on 15 September 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

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.