Another Win for the SAF

Horse Plains Drifter

https://mailchi.mp/saf/saf-court-victory-ends-gun-ban?e=1d3d138b5e



SAF COURT VICTORY
ENDS GUN BAN
A federal judge has issued a permanent injunction against the East St. Louis Housing Authority?s (ESLHA) ban on firearms possession by residents of government-subsidized public housing and thus granting a victory to the Second Amendment Foundation, which sued the town in 2018 over the ban.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of an ?N. Doe? resident who wished to protect her identity, because she is, according to the lawsuit, ?hiding from a violent domestic abuser. SAF was joined by the Illinois State Rifle Association. They were represented by Glen Ellyn, Illinois attorney David Sigale.

?We are delighted with the judge?s decision, which we hope sends a message to other municipal governments that they can?t try to sneak around the two United States Supreme Court victories that SAF and its attorneys were involved in to further their efforts to ban legal firearms ownership,? said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

Gottlieb noted, ?Our attorney, in this case, David Sigale, holds the record for the most gun rights court victories in the legal profession.?

?This isn?t the first time we?ve had to challenge such a regulation,? said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. ?It is simply unacceptable for citizens living in public housing to be denied their basic right to have a firearm for personal protection, and in this case, it was unconscionable.?
The court order of final judgment ruled that the plaintiff?s rights are were violated under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments due to a requirement that no firearms be possessed on the property as a condition of the lease.
?This situation was made even more outrageous considering what has happened to Ms. Doe while living at her home,? Gottlieb noted, referring to the lawsuit. ?We?ve explained how she was beaten and raped in January 2017, and her children stopped the attack only by threatening to use a gun. On two other occasions, Ms. Doe had to call the police due to shootings in nearby residences. When the housing authority threatened to terminate her lease due to the gun in her residence, they insisted that the building is safe, so she doesn?t need a gun.?

?This kind of gun prohibition extremism has no place on American soil,? Gottlieb observed. It?s just one more example of how the Second Amendment Foundation is winning firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time.?

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. View Court Order here.

Mr. Perfect

I had read that earlier, HPD. A true win for liberty.

tr fox

The more pro 2A organizations winning for gun rights the better. However, way too many gun owners only cheer from the sidelines for the SAF. But it takes money, as large a membership list as possible, political power, etc. for such organizations to win. I notice Mr. Perfect doesn't encourage anyone to put some skin in the game. I doubt he or the other NRA haters ever do.

35 Whelen

tr fox wrote:

The more pro 2A organizations winning for gun rights the better. However, way too many gun owners only cheer from the sidelines for the SAF. But it takes money, as large a membership list as possible, political power, etc. for such organizations to win. I notice Mr. Perfect doesn't encourage anyone to put some skin in the game. I doubt he or the other NRA haters ever do.

I doubt as many "cheer from the sidelines" as you claim, versus sitting under the bleachers, using the only milquetoast cadence they know; "but, but, they're all we've got!" Doesn't seem like you give much, if any, credit to anyone outside the NRA, given how many opportunities in recent times, let alone any other opportunities, period? I don't see this single post as counting toward it, either, as anything besides three letters you're not used to typing, but bravo for finding them either way.

It is better having more than one pro-2A organization out there, and we can actually agree on that. Too bad you'll never have the wherewithal to do anything more difficult, proactive, or financial than pat yourself on the back as if you ever have done anything truly above and beyond the next guy.

Horse Plains Drifter

tr fox wrote:

The more pro 2A organizations winning for gun rights the better. However, way too many gun owners only cheer from the sidelines for the SAF. But it takes money, as large a membership list as possible, political power, etc. for such organizations to win. I notice Mr. Perfect doesn't encourage anyone to put some skin in the game. I doubt he or the other NRA haters ever do.

Quit lying, fox. You have proven time and again, by your postings here, that you do not believe in the second amendment.

Mr. Perfect

tr fox wrote:

The more pro 2A organizations winning for gun rights the better. However, way too many gun owners only cheer from the sidelines for the SAF. But it takes money, as large a membership list as possible, political power, etc. for such organizations to win. I notice Mr. Perfect doesn't encourage anyone to put some skin in the game. I doubt he or the other NRA haters ever do.

You don't notice that because you aren't even paying attention. Probably why you support the back stabbing NRA.

Mr. Perfect

Let's have a look see at who's doing more for Second Amendment rights:

NRA supporter gives them their $25 annual membership. That's a -$25 in the battle for 2A
Joe Blow gun owner sitting on the sidelines gives none of his money to any org. That's $25 better than the NRA sycophant.
SAF supporter gives $25 to the SAF. That's $50 better than the NRA sycophant.

Don McManus

tr fox wrote:

The more pro 2A organizations winning for gun rights the better. However, way too many gun owners only cheer from the sidelines for the SAF. But it takes money, as large a membership list as possible, political power, etc. for such organizations to win. I notice Mr. Perfect doesn't encourage anyone to put some skin in the game. I doubt he or the other NRA haters ever do.

There is a fundamental difference between a political approach and a judicial approach, MR. Fox.

There are large swaths of this country where the population is lost, and a political approach is little more than a feel good effort. Until governments are told that there are hard limits to their power, they will continue (usually with the agreement of a majority of the electorate) expanding that power at the expense of the liberty of the minority.

The SAF has a long and successful track record of addressing individual statutes on a Constitutional basis. With every victory, every win where a law is struck down a precedent is established that will eventually extend beyond the jurisdiction in which it was set. Politicians will continue to legislate our access to firearms, often with the support of nominal gun rights organizations.

Legislated access, however, only strengthens the hand of government in that if a government can bestow something, that government is positioned to take that something away. I support the SAF and the GOA. Am a life member of both, and give additional monies every year to support their efforts in eliminating legislation that I believe weakens our 2nd Amendment liberty. You and I disagree strongly on the result of the actions of the NRA, but that should not stop either of us from moving forward for what is important.

Mr. Perfect

Don McManus wrote:

tr fox wrote:

The more pro 2A organizations winning for gun rights the better. However, way too many gun owners only cheer from the sidelines for the SAF. But it takes money, as large a membership list as possible, political power, etc. for such organizations to win. I notice Mr. Perfect doesn't encourage anyone to put some skin in the game. I doubt he or the other NRA haters ever do.

There is a fundamental difference between a political approach and a judicial approach, MR. Fox.

There are large swaths of this country where the population is lost, and a political approach is little more than a feel good effort. Until governments are told that there are hard limits to their power, they will continue (usually with the agreement of a majority of the electorate) expanding that power at the expense of the liberty of the minority.

The SAF has a long and successful track record of addressing individual statutes on a Constitutional basis. With every victory, every win where a law is struck down a precedent is established that will eventually extend beyond the jurisdiction in which it was set. Politicians will continue to legislate our access to firearms, often with the support of nominal gun rights organizations.

Legislated access, however, only strengthens the hand of government in that if a government can bestow something, that government is positioned to take that something away. I support the SAF and the GOA. Am a life member of both, and give additional monies every year to support their efforts in eliminating legislation that I believe weakens our 2nd Amendment liberty. You and I disagree strongly on the result of the actions of the NRA, but that should not stop either of us from moving forward for what is important.

That's the thing, Don. Folks such as fox here are perfectly content with the legislated access approach. They don't think that certain people should own or have access to weapons and that certain others shouldn't have access to certain classes of weapons. They're perfectly content with those things so they see the NRA as their best advocate. They might moan and * some when the bar moves about the "who" or "what" of those limitations on access, but ultimately they step in line like the sheep they are. And they're all too willing to construct the typical "you want dangerous criminals to have access to nuclear weapons" strawman argument in response to such criticism. Their compromise and responses at this point are such a bore. But what can we expect from such simple minded and vacuous folk?

Don McManus

Mr. Perfect wrote:

Don McManus wrote:

tr fox wrote:

The more pro 2A organizations winning for gun rights the better. However, way too many gun owners only cheer from the sidelines for the SAF. But it takes money, as large a membership list as possible, political power, etc. for such organizations to win. I notice Mr. Perfect doesn't encourage anyone to put some skin in the game. I doubt he or the other NRA haters ever do.

There is a fundamental difference between a political approach and a judicial approach, MR. Fox.

There are large swaths of this country where the population is lost, and a political approach is little more than a feel good effort. Until governments are told that there are hard limits to their power, they will continue (usually with the agreement of a majority of the electorate) expanding that power at the expense of the liberty of the minority.

The SAF has a long and successful track record of addressing individual statutes on a Constitutional basis. With every victory, every win where a law is struck down a precedent is established that will eventually extend beyond the jurisdiction in which it was set. Politicians will continue to legislate our access to firearms, often with the support of nominal gun rights organizations.

Legislated access, however, only strengthens the hand of government in that if a government can bestow something, that government is positioned to take that something away. I support the SAF and the GOA. Am a life member of both, and give additional monies every year to support their efforts in eliminating legislation that I believe weakens our 2nd Amendment liberty. You and I disagree strongly on the result of the actions of the NRA, but that should not stop either of us from moving forward for what is important.

That's the thing, Don. Folks such as fox here are perfectly content with the legislated access approach. They don't think that certain people should own or have access to weapons and that certain others shouldn't have access to certain classes of weapons. They're perfectly content with those things so they see the NRA as their best advocate. They might moan and * some when the bar moves about the "who" or "what" of those limitations on access, but ultimately they step in line like the sheep they are. And they're all too willing to construct the typical "you want dangerous criminals to have access to nuclear weapons" strawman argument in response to such criticism. Their compromise and responses at this point are such a bore. But what can we expect from such simple minded and vacuous folk?

We can hope to bring people closer to the idea of 2nd Amendment liberty vs. 'Gun Rights'.

Once people understand that there is a clear difference between and Individual Right and Gun Rights, there will be the possibility that the tide can be turned.

It is looking less and less likely, however. Even now, a large segment of the left views the First Amendment as a collective right vs. an Individual Right, and a large segment on the right view the 4th and 5th Amendments as Collective Rights and not Individual Rights.

This all points us to looking to the SAF and, frankly the ACLU to properly focus the discussion on the Individual and not the collective, as the political process is dysfunctional (at best) and the best avenue of attack is through the courts.

I believe Mr. Fox to be wrong in much of his thinking. I also believe him to be sincere in that he believes his approach is our best option to protect our 2nd Amendment Liberty. There have been a number of folks on this forum who have moved towards Liberty over the past 15 years (me being one of them). If we keep pointing out truth, more will move that direction. Shaming folks because of their beliefs, particularly if they are sincere, almost always drives them deeper and deeper into that belief.

Mr. Fox would be a good ally for liberty were he to come around, as would many here who have fallen into the mindset that the Legislated Access approach is our best option.

Mr. Perfect

Don McManus wrote:

Mr. Perfect wrote:

Don McManus wrote:

There is a fundamental difference between a political approach and a judicial approach, MR. Fox.

There are large swaths of this country where the population is lost, and a political approach is little more than a feel good effort. Until governments are told that there are hard limits to their power, they will continue (usually with the agreement of a majority of the electorate) expanding that power at the expense of the liberty of the minority.

The SAF has a long and successful track record of addressing individual statutes on a Constitutional basis. With every victory, every win where a law is struck down a precedent is established that will eventually extend beyond the jurisdiction in which it was set. Politicians will continue to legislate our access to firearms, often with the support of nominal gun rights organizations.

Legislated access, however, only strengthens the hand of government in that if a government can bestow something, that government is positioned to take that something away. I support the SAF and the GOA. Am a life member of both, and give additional monies every year to support their efforts in eliminating legislation that I believe weakens our 2nd Amendment liberty. You and I disagree strongly on the result of the actions of the NRA, but that should not stop either of us from moving forward for what is important.

That's the thing, Don. Folks such as fox here are perfectly content with the legislated access approach. They don't think that certain people should own or have access to weapons and that certain others shouldn't have access to certain classes of weapons. They're perfectly content with those things so they see the NRA as their best advocate. They might moan and * some when the bar moves about the "who" or "what" of those limitations on access, but ultimately they step in line like the sheep they are. And they're all too willing to construct the typical "you want dangerous criminals to have access to nuclear weapons" strawman argument in response to such criticism. Their compromise and responses at this point are such a bore. But what can we expect from such simple minded and vacuous folk?

We can hope to bring people closer to the idea of 2nd Amendment liberty vs. 'Gun Rights'.

Once people understand that there is a clear difference between and Individual Right and Gun Rights, there will be the possibility that the tide can be turned.

It is looking less and less likely, however. Even now, a large segment of the left views the First Amendment as a collective right vs. an Individual Right, and a large segment on the right view the 4th and 5th Amendments as Collective Rights and not Individual Rights.

This all points us to looking to the SAF and, frankly the ACLU to properly focus the discussion on the Individual and not the collective, as the political process is dysfunctional (at best) and the best avenue of attack is through the courts.

I believe Mr. Fox to be wrong in much of his thinking. I also believe him to be sincere in that he believes his approach is our best option to protect our 2nd Amendment Liberty. There have been a number of folks on this forum who have moved towards Liberty over the past 15 years (me being one of them). If we keep pointing out truth, more will move that direction. Shaming folks because of their beliefs, particularly if they are sincere, almost always drives them deeper and deeper into that belief.

Mr. Fox would be a good ally for liberty were he to come around, as would many here who have fallen into the mindset that the Legislated Access approach is our best option.

That's certainly a valid approach in a good many cases, Don.