Shepard v Madigan (IL) dismissed

M

ming

New member
Just heard that the Shepard v Madigan case has been dismissed in a 19 page opinion by district judge William D. Stiehl which seems (at least to me) to be antithetical to the ruling in Batemen v Perdue :


...
Accordingly, the Court FINDS that the plaintiffs’ claim that the provisions of the State of
Illinois’ Unlawful Use of a Handgun and Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Handgun statutes do not
violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution because the bearing of a
firearm outside the home is not a core right protected by the Second Amendment.
Therefore, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED

This is the case on the issue of whether the State of Illinois’ Unlawful Use of a Handgun and Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Handgun statutes violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Under current Illinois law citizens are prohibited from carrying loaded, operable firearms in public.

An appeal will follow:

NRA Will Appeal Decision Denying Right to Carry Outside the Home. Late today, a federal district court in Illinois wrongly ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to protect firearms for self-protection outside the home. The NRA funded this challenge to Illinois’ ban on citizens’ ability to carry firearms legally outside their homes and businesses for self-defense, and will also be supporting an immediate appeal to the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals—and to the Supreme Court if necessary.The decision in the case of Shepard v. Madigan misreads the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions and will continue to deprive law-abiding Illinoisans of the right to protect themselves effectively against crime on the streets. It also conflicts with a growing body of case law elsewhere in the country, where courts have increasingly recognized that the right to bear arms for self-defense doesn’t end at Americans’ front doors.“The NRA’s legal efforts will not end until the right to carry firearms for self-defense is fully recognized throughout our land,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action.For more information on this and other critical Second Amendment cases, please sign up for our free Legal Update newsletter at www.nraila.org/legalupdate.
 
Last edited:
It seems these states are going to learn in the next few years how to read the constitution of the United States... Amazing how simple english gets so twisted.... It will be ruled a civil right one day and these nightmare laws and courts will have to eat some crow.

Its a shame the good people of these states have to tolerate such nonsense...
 
...do not violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution because the bearing of a firearm outside the home is not a core right protected by the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
 
There is another problem with this case that bears mentioning.

If we look at the docket (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilsd.52207/gov.uscourts.ilsd.52207.docket.html) we see that there are no filings between Feb. 8th and this opinion (Mar. 30th). We know that on Mar. 2nd, that Woollard was decided (not posted until Mar. 5th). On Mar. 6th, the Weaver case was decided.

Both of those cases had concluded that carry outside the home for self defense was part of the protected right. Even though these cases were in the 4th CA, they were still citable as supplemental authority, every bit as much as the other cases that found against the right.

Yet, the NRA (and through them, the Illinois State Rifle Association) failed to notice the court of these authorities. As late as yesterday, when Bateman was decided, it could have been noticed. Even as late as this morning when Fletcher was decided, it too, could have been noticed.

Would this have made any difference? Probably not, as it appears that Judge Stiehl already had his mind made up... But the fact is, we just don't know. What I do believe is that Judge Stiehl would have had to confront these rulings in some way. That alone would have delayed this decision.

As it stands, this is just another 2A Two-Step decision. It is weaker than the decision in Moore as Judge Stiehl uses that decision as the basis for his own decision. This is made clear in footnote 7, pp 14.

If I were to complain about anything, I would complain about the lack of expertise of the NRA funded attorney.
 
Did I miss something in Shepard v Madigan?

The decision says "the Court is aware that the state must establish that there is a reasonable fit between the statute and its restrictions and a substantial governmental interest." I see where the court found "that the state has ... established a substantial interest in the regulations at issue" but I saw absolutely no discussion of how the state satisfied its burden of showing "a reasonable fit between the statute and it restrictions and a substantial government objective."

Since the overarching aspect of the decision was the scope of the Second Amendment, why did the judge wander off into an incomplete discussion of an appropriate level of scrutiny (if the challenge had been within scope)?
 
Last edited:
It looks like we're on really good footing in North Carolina and Maryland, with a good chance the 4th Circuit will confirm the right to carry. On the other hand, we've got a good chance the 7th Circuit will deny the existence of the right.

A circuit split can be a fast track to getting the issue heard before the Supreme Court.
 
I was thinking along similar lines. It may turn out that the Shepard v Madigan ruling may help in the long run if it leads to an earlier positive SCOTUS ruling. Hope I'm not just engaging in wishful thinking.
 
Last edited:
Gc70, see footnote 7. It explains Judge Stiehl's reasoning (my emphasis below):

7 In undertaking this review, the Court has considered decisions of courts which have preceded this Court’s inquiry and analysis on the issue of the application of the Heller decision to Second Amendment challenges outside of the home. Most notably, this Court finds the logic and analysis of the Central District of Illinois, on basically identical issues to those raised here, to be persuasive and adopts, but does not repeat, that court’s review of the historical approach to the issue of the Second Amendment rights raised here. See, Moore v. Madigan, No. 11-3134, 2012 WL 3447660, at *5 (C.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2012). In addition, the Court finds instructive, the summary in Moore of other courts which have considered and rejected attempts to expand the decision in Heller to the right to bear arms outside of the home. Id. at *7 (collecting cases).
Click to expand...

What makes this all the more troubling is that attorney William Howard did not bother to notice the recent rulings in MD and WV. That was an (almost?) unforgivable oversight.

As for carry outside the home, there are a couple of cases ahead of Sheppard, Moore being just one of them.

One thing to keep in mind, now that a couple of Judges have "broken the wall" of resistance, expect more of them to follow. Particularly at the Circuit Court level.
 
Al Norris,

Thanks for the explanation; that is exactly what I was missing. Unfortunately, I have a bad habit of not paying enough attention to footnotes. :o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top