The Second Amendment Foundation has gained another win in Illinois. This victory is a necessary but preliminary step to restore Second Amendment rights to people who are foster parents in Illinois. From SAF:
A federal district court judge in Illinois has denied that state’s motion to dismiss a legal challenge by the Second Amendment Foundation of its foster parenting rules that place restrictions on the possession of firearms for personal protection.David Sigale is the attorney that won the Second Amendment case in Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Sigale has won several other Second Amendment cases. In 2014, he was awarded the Gun Rights Defender of the Year by the Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, at the Gun Rights Policy Conference.
SAF filed the lawsuit last summer on behalf of Kenneth and Colleen Shults in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. Named as a defendant in the case is George H. Sheldon, in his official capacity as director of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (IDCFS). SAF is joined by the Illinois State Rifle Association.
On Tuesday, District Judge Colin Stirling Bruce ruled that there are “sufficient factual allegations to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” The complaint alleges that the state has deprived Kenneth and Colleen Shults of their civil rights under color of law.
“We brought this action on behalf of the plaintiffs to establish that the state’s restrictions on the possession and carrying of firearms by foster parents is unconstitutional under both the Second and Fourteenth amendments,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We’re delighted that the judge will allow our action to go forward because it is important to establish that people do not surrender their Second Amendment rights in order to become foster parents. We’re in court to make sure that the state cannot discriminate against foster parents who merely wish to exercise the rights we’ve restored in Illinois.”
The case now enters the discovery phase, according to SAF attorney David Sigale of Glen Ellyn, Illinois.
The case is known as Shults et al v. Sheldon.
©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
I think the Marianas case could have been won by just about anyone. it just needed a name on the paperwork. the problem with attorneys is they have to deposit the check first then they will take any case. just because they win a very simple case does not make them a gun advocate. Look at the attorneys for the NRA. In my opinion they have been arguing the wrong issues for decades but the pay is good. if they argued the correct issues they would be out of work and have to resort to ambulance chasing. to me it is simple "Shall Not Be Infringed and states rights verses federal constitution", under the tenth amendment separation of powers. the US congress can not change the second amendment. Under the tenth amendment the states sure as hell have no authority to change the second amendment. It seems to me pretty well cut and dried. why do we keep electing morons that can not read plain English? the oath of office requires upholding and defending the constitution. Shall Not Be Infringed is what is written and what they are required to enforce. No Act or law can supersede the supreme law of this land. The constitution of the United States is the supreme law of this land and all states are subject to it. the single word infringe prevents any law against the second amendment. No part of the second amendment can be ignored or replaced/added to by any one without changing the word INFRINGE without a constitutional amendment ratified by the people. Until the word Infringe is changed all weapons laws are repugnant to the constitution as written. if they are repugnant to the constitution they are void, Including the 1934NFA. 1968 and 1986 GCAs and all state or territorial laws. maybe a real gun advocate attorney will put this information to use.
ReplyDelete