IL: Winbigler v. Warren County Housing Authority.

[Al Norris]

SAF Press release:

SAF SUES OVER PUBLIC HOUSING GUN BAN IN WARREN CO, ILLINOIS
For Immediate Release: 4/4/2012

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit against the Warren County, Illinois Housing Authority, seeking an injunction against the WCHA’s ban on personally-owned firearms by residents of government-subsidized housing.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Ronald G. Winbigler, a resident of Costello Terrace in Monmouth. Mr. Winbigler is a physically disabled former police officer who wants to have a handgun in his residence for personal protection. The lawsuit seeks equitable, declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the WCHA ban. It was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Rock Island Division.

“Ron Winbigler faces the same dilemma so many other residents of government-subsidized public housing face,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “He wants a firearm for self-defense, but he risks losing a place to live because of bureaucratic political correctness. As a police officer, he consistently trained and repeatedly qualified in the safe use and handling of firearms, and because of his experience, he understands the threat of crime.”

“People do not lose their Second Amendment rights just because they are of limited means,” added attorney David Sigale, who represents SAF and Winbigler in this action. “Nobody wishes to be in need of financial assistance, but it is an indignity to make the waiver of constitutional rights a condition of government-subsidized housing. We are confident the Courts will hold that those residents have the same right to defend their families and themselves as everyone else.”

“It is astonishing that in Illinois of all places, government entities would continue to interfere with the Second Amendment rights of citizens, after our Supreme Court victory in the McDonald case almost two years ago,” Gottlieb said. “That case nullified Chicago’s handgun ban and extended Second Amendment protections against infringement by state and local governments and their agencies. Mr. Winbigler and people like him deserve the full protection of the Constitution, especially if they live in subsidized public housing.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

I've already recapped the docket and the complaint. The Docket is listed in Post #5, Item #70 of the Current 2A Cases thread. the Complaint is here: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilcd.54722/gov.uscourts.ilcd.54722.1.0.pdf

You can take note that David Sigale is the attorney here. The SAF is apparently trying to do what the NRA couldn't do in their case, Scott v. D.C. Housing Authority (#52). In this case, Stephan Halbrook voluntarily dismissed his case on Feb. 16th, when it came to light that his plaintiff didn't really want a gun.

Another case, Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority et al, (#53) an NRA backed case has gone south and has been awaiting a decision on cross-MSJ's since July 15th, 2011. Here the plaintiff has actually agreed with the reasoning of the defendants actions, during deposition.

This SAF suit appears to be much better than what we have seen, to date.

 

[borgranta]

Would they disarm active duty police offirs as well?

Would they disarm active duty police offirs as well?
disarming retired and active duty police officers directly violates LEOSA federal law however they are also violating state and federal gun ownership law by denying him the right to bear arms which is made worse because it is government funded. What would stop them from disarming an employed police officer.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

disarming retired and active duty police officers directly violates LEOSA federal law

He is not seeking to "bear" arms, he is seeking to "keep" arms in his home. There is no question in my mind that his rights are being violated, but the LEOSA has nothing to do with a retired officer keeping a firearm in his/her home.