Post 134 v Morton Grove - Range

[Euler]

Filed in Northern Illinois Federal District Court on 18 February 2021.

 

Docket

Complaint said:

...

In September, 1949, Post 134 constructed a Post building at 6140 Dempster Street, Morton Grove, Illinois (hereinafter the "Building").

...

In or around the year 2000, Post 134 determined that it would be in the best interest of the Post, as well as the Village residents who the Building served, if the Village purchased the Building. Pursuant to the Agreement, Post 134 conveyed title to the Building to the Village ...

...

The basement of the Building included a six-lane gun range (the "Range") ...

...

When the Post 134 sold the Building to the Village, it was a material term of the Agreement that Post 134 have the right to continue operation of the Range. ...

...

In or around April, 2012, an inspector from the Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency ("IRMA"), the Village's insurer, inspected the Range and concluded that the ventilation system was not adequate or in compliance with industry standards. The inspector ordered the Range closed, at which point the Village padlocked the door to the range and posted a sign that prohibited anyone from entering the Range room without approval of the Village Chief of Police.

...

COUNT I: VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
U.S. CONST. AMENDS. II AND XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

...

The Second Amendment, which applies against the Village by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment, secures the right to operate firearms at a range ...

...

After shuttering the Range in 2011 based on alleged ventilation issues, the Village has at every turn met Post 134's effort to come into compliance with new and unreasonable or unnecessary requirements; with each of Post 134's submissions, the Village added a new "consultant" and a new layer of demands. Moreover, the demands were not reasonably supportable under industry guidelines or municipal code requirements.

...

COUNT II: VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH
U.S. CONST. AMENDS. I AND XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

...

The First Amendment, which applies against the Village by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment, secures the right to provide and receive education and instruction in the use of firearms, including the right to provide and receive the training required by defendant as a prerequisite to owning firearms.

...

COUNT III: VIOLATION OF ILLINOIS STATE LAW
BREACH OF LEASE AGREEMENT

...

The Agreement created enforceable contractual obligations between the Village and Post 134, one of which was Post 134's right to operate the Range. By unreasonably, and without justification by law or industry standard, preventing Post 134 from enjoying the benefit of the Agreement, the Village is in breach of the Agreement.

...

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff ... respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and against the Defendant ... and to grant Plaintiff the following relief:

 

1. Enter an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Village, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from preventing Post 134 from completing the renovation and improvement of the Range as proposed in the application for building permit, with its accompanying plans, submitted to the Village on February 13, 2020, including the mandatory relief requiring the Village to issue the necessary and appropriate permits for these renovations and improvement;

 

2. Enter an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Village, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from preventing Post 134 and its members from operating and using the Range, including mandatory relief that the Village issue the necessary permits and licenses necessary to the operation of the Range;

 

3. Grant Plaintiff any and all further declaratory relief consistent with the injunction;

 

4. Award Plaintiff money damages, in an amount to be proven at trial, for the Village's breach of the Agreement;

 

5. Award Plaintiff attorney fees and costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;

 

6. Award Plaintiff costs of suit; and

 

7. Grant Plaintiff such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate.

 

POST 134 DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY.

[Tango7]

Given Morton Grove's history, they were probably looking for a way to close it as soon as they agreed to purchase the building. I'm only surprised that it took them that long.

[Euler]

On November 17, the parties reported to the judge that they had reached a settlement agreement, although it has not been finalized. There were no other details.

[Euler]

On 11/20/2022 at 6:27 PM, Euler said:

On November 17, the parties reported to the judge that they had reached a settlement agreement, although it has not been finalized. There were no other details.

 

On December 30, the parties reported to the judge that the settlement had been finalized. The judge asked the parties to file a stipulation for dismissal. There are still no other details (nor do I expect there will be).

[Euler]

A little clean-up work from delayed dockets ...

 

On January 11, the case was closed with prejudice, based on a stipulation of dismissal (i.e., out of court settlement). Each party to bear its own costs.