Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Another 2nd Amendment Victory !!!

Expand Messages
  • suesarkis@aol.com
    In the Second Amendment Foundation Gun Case Fee Dispute, the Appeals Court Ruled Against Chicago! When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Chicago s handgun
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 4, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      In the Second Amendment Foundation Gun Case Fee Dispute, the Appeals Court
      Ruled Against Chicago!

      When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Chicago's handgun ban last June,
      civil rights attorney Alan Gura considered himself a winner in the
      landmark case. Judge Milton Shadur of Chicago federal district court, however, did
      not see a victory at all. Shadur ruled against Gura's demand for legal
      fees. Shadur said Gura, of Alexandria's Gura & Possessky, was not the
      prevailing party because Chicago, days after the high court ruling, repealed and
      amended the city's gun law. Inducing a defendant to change conduct, the judge
      said, pointing to Supreme Court precedent isn't enough to declare victory
      and earn a right to pursue legal fees.

      Second Amendment Foundation helped Mr. Gura to take the dispute to the
      U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, setting up an appeal that asked the
      question: What does it mean to "win" in the Supreme Court? This past week,
      the appeals court answered the question.

      A unanimous three-judge panel ruled in favor of Gura's legal fee request,
      reversing Shadur and sending the dispute back to U.S. District Court for
      the Northern District of Illinois. The court instructed Shadur to award
      reasonable fees. Gura has not publicly identified the amount he is seeking from

      Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook, sitting with Judges Richard Posner and
      William Bauer, said in the five-page ruling that lead plaintiff Otis McDonald
      achieved a decision that altered the legal relationship of the parties, he
      ruled. "Many a defendant gives up after a district court's final decision
      and does not appeal; some other parties settle to avoid the risk of reversal.
      If a cessation of hostilities after a district court's decision does not
      deprive the victor of prevailing party status, why should conceding defeat
      after a decision by the Supreme Court do so?"

      Lawyers for Chicago and the Village of Oak Park argued in the appeal that
      the Supreme Court ruling addressed a preliminary legal issue that did not
      resolve the plaintiffs' claims.

      A lawyer for Chicago, Suzanne Loose, assistant corporation counsel, said
      in court papers the high court decision in McDonald v. Chicago did not it
      self strike down the city's handgun ban. The city, Loose said, voluntarily
      amended its ordinance in the absence of any court order to make changes.

      The appeals court said after the Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment
      applies to states and municipalities, the defendant's handgun bans could
      not be sustained. Easterbrook said Chicago and Oak Park "bowed to the
      inevitable" before Shadur could issue a final judgment.

      "The district court was right to observe that plaintiffs did not receive a
      favorable judgment from it," Easterbrook said. "But they did better: They
      won in the Supreme Court, which entered a judgment in their favor."

      A spokesperson for the city's Department of Law was not immediately
      reached by phone and e-mail. The Second Amendment Foundation was VICTORIOUS!

      "Obviously we are very pleased with the decision. It's fairly obvious we
      prevailed in this case and the city is liable for that." Gura said he hopes
      "the city will come to its senses to resolve this without any additional

      Governments, whether federal, state or local, simply cannot evade their
      responsibilities to obey the Constitution and adhere to Supreme Court rulings.
      Such cavalier behavior, were it allowed to go unchecked, would lead to
      anarchy, or the establishment of imperial government that picks and chooses
      which laws and court rulings it will obey, and which civil rights it will

      That may be "the Chicago Way," but it's not the American Way.

      In spite of the judge's ruling, Chicago government remains extremely
      HOSTILE to hand gun permits!

      Gun prohibitionists cannot have it their way. Our U.S. Constitution, our
      U.S. Supreme Court, our American traditions, and our Founding Forefathers
      say so. Simply because they arrogantly believe they are above the law does
      not make it so.

      As a law-abiding, tax-paying, gun-owning citizen, you must help to protect
      your Constitutionally-given rights, whether it be right where you live, or
      anywhere around the great country. It is absolutely unbelievable what is
      happening to gun rights across this great nation of ours,

      This is just one of numerous lawsuits that the Second Amendment Foundation
      has taken on. EACH lawsuit has a "price-tag" of $60,000 - $80,000!!

      The original McDonald v. Chicago case that the Second Amendment Foundation
      won 15 months ago was the "gateway" that opened up many of these other
      cases---and legal victories!

      We are still in court on nearly TWO DOZEN cases related to gun freedoms!

      Every owner of a weapon - 80,000,000 of us -should be indebted to the
      Second Amendment Foundation, for standing up in various courts of law, to
      defend the Second Amendment - the rights to keep and bear arms!

      If you've never given before, maybe you might consider helping their cause
      which is OUR cause now.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.