SAF on the move
In Illinois, Moore v. Madigan:
Illinois’s ban on carrying handguns violates the U.S. Constitution, the Second Amendment Foundation Inc., an advocacy group, said in a federal court lawsuit.
“Illinois is currently the only state in the country that imposes a complete prohibition on the carrying of firearms for personal protection by its citizens,” foundation Vice President Alan Gottlieb said today in a press statement announcing yesterday’s filing in Springfield, the state capital.
Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution’s Second Amendment, the Bellevue, Washington-based group seeks a court order declaring two challenged state statutes invalid to the extent they prohibit people who are otherwise qualified from carrying handguns for self defense.
May 13th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Good timing on this.
To avoid the cost of litigation maybe the upstate Reps will get on board with the carry law stalled in the Legislature.
Nah, Daley and DC can be counted on to go down fighting and hurt their own side in the bargain.
May 13th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Slavery is alive and well in “the Land of Lincoln”:
“…The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved.” – James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604
May 13th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
The Illinois Legislature (and many other public SERVANTS) needs to be educated thusly:
“The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere (Article I, Section 8.15-16, U.S. Constitution), consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered, (employed) and enrolled for service when called upon…. [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.” — Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]
May 13th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Not to be left out, the NRA did the same thing:
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=15127
May 13th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
I’m no NRA hater but it would be nice if they would deign to admit that SAF exists and they are usually joining them in suing, if not bandwagon jumping.
What’s worse is they have to bein commo prior to these filings, they don’t whip these up overnight.
To those of us with any awareness it just looks petty if not actively deceptive. Be a team player NRA.
May 13th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Damn, that Alan Gura sure does get around! No wonder he looked so exhausted at Lidia’s. Now if the NRA Leadership weren’t sucking up to guys like Harry Reid so they could get a fancy new Range in Nevada, and step up to the plate and share the load…
May 14th, 2011 at 11:03 am
Markie Marxist sez: “Handguns are excellent self-defense tools. That’s why we can’t let anyone carry one. Unless they work for us via the government. We can’t have private citizens shooting our Marxist/warrior/hero/criminals! It discourages them.”
May 14th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Well said, Chas….and only your enemy wants you disarmed.