SAF Wins Permanent Injunction Ending East St. Louis, Illinois Public Housing Gun Ban

public housing east st. Louis gun ban

Bigstock

Public housing authorities all over the country try to get away with illegally restricting residents’ Second Amendment rights. Click here to see some of the instances we’ve covered over the years.

The fact that residents have to leave one of their civil rights at the door is a scandal in and of itself. Fortunately, there are gun rights orgs willing to take up these cases and press the government authorities on the issue.

The latest win comes in a Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association suit filed against the East St. Louis, Illinois Housing Authority. Here’s SAF’s press release announcing the victory . . .

SAF COURT VICTORY ENDS GUN BAN

BELLEVUE, WA – 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 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 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.

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.

comments

  1. avatar Sam I Am says:

    The residents better all be armed with revolvers; semi-auto bans are all the rage now.

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      They will probably come out with a ban on 6 shot ( high capacity) revolvers and will only allow 5 shot snubbies.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “They will probably come out with a ban on 6 shot ( high capacity) revolvers and will only allow 5 shot snubbies.”

        With non-detachable cylinders.

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          Single.action onlt of course.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Single.action onlt of course.”

          Since such revolvers have no safety features, government will require the hammers be removed so the owner does not accidentally cock the hammer and commit an ND.

    2. avatar George D Proctor SR says:

      I think that it is time for the 1934 National Fire Arms act, the 1968, and I think that it’s the 1984 gun control acts be challenged in court, I base this on the Militia Act of 1792 as amended which requires every male 17-45 to have a firearm, powder and shot when called out as the militia. the SCOTUS decision of 1939 Miller v US which states that the whole people are the Militia, men and women and are required when called to service are required to come bearing arms of the type in use by the military. Today that means AR15’s and others. And the constitutional amendment that bans age discrimination

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “I think that it is time for the 1934 National Fire Arms act, the 1968, and I think that it’s the 1984 gun control acts…”Beware the Jabberwock (Common), my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird (Tradition), and shun The frumious Bandersnatch (History)!”

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        George,

        The 1939 United States v. Miller case holds that the Second Amendment only applies to firearms that support, “a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” Using that standard, full auto machine guns therefore have Second Amendment protection which should invalidate the National Firearms Act of 1934 (the registration requirement might still stand but the U.S. Supreme Court should strike down the $200 tax and the typical 10 month waiting period) and the 1986 Hughes Amendment (which forbids civilian ownership of full-auto firearms manufactured after 1986).

        Please note that there are three primary reasons that no one has yet challenged the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the 1986 Hughes Amendment:
        (1) There was no U.S. Supreme Court case which ruled that the Second Amendment applies to individual citizens until the 2008 Heller v. District of Columbia and 2010 McDonald v. Chicago cases.
        (2) There still is no U.S. Supreme Court case which dictates that the courts use “strict scrutiny” when evaluating Second Amendment cases. (Hopefully that is coming this summer in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. New York City case at the U.S. Supreme Court.)
        (3) There has not been a solid pro Second Amendment majority on the U.S. Supreme Court in the last 120+ years. (Hopefully that just changed with the addition of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh — and will be further strengthened in the next two years if Ginsburg will do us all a favor and leave the court.)

        With a bit of good fortune and good timing, we just might see the end of the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the 1986 Hughes Amendment soon, real soon.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “(2) There still is no U.S. Supreme Court case which dictates that the courts use “strict scrutiny” when evaluating Second Amendment cases. (Hopefully that is coming this summer in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. New York City case at the U.S. Supreme Court.)”

          I hope so as well, but I’m concerned about what form it may take. Scalia in ‘Heller’ ruled the 2A is not a ‘blank check’ of guns everywhere, in any manner. Also, restrictions on felons being denied the Right were fair game.

          So what form may this take? Thomas can see what’s going on with the abuses going on in the slave state governments, if he gives them an inch, they are gonna take a light-year.

          I can foresee the Leftists creating felonies out of misdemeanors so they can expand what qualifies as a ‘prohibited person’. Example – A careless driving conviction or speeding 10 mph over the posted limit. Their logic will be, if you can’t operate a motor vehicle carefully, you shouldn’t be trusted to own guns.

          How may this play out? I doubt full-auto will come off the NFA, but we may nuke the Hughes amendment. Etc.

          Any predictions?

  2. avatar GeorgiaBob says:

    Better than argue over 2A rights, why not simply ban public housing. I cannot find any constitutional support for government subsidy of private residences.

    1. avatar D says:

      It right next to “hunting” in the 2nd A

  3. avatar RA-15 says:

    Good work SAF !!

  4. avatar Ian in Transit says:

    What? Allow the poor to protect themselves the same way celebrities and politicians do? Activist judges are chipping away at the rights reserved for the elite. It’s a slippery slope I tell you. Where is my banana peal emoji?

  5. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

    This having to play *expensive* ‘Whack-a-Mole’ with every single bullshit anti-gun law is annoying.

    Can any of the TTAG legal folks educate me on scrutiny regarding civil rights cases? Scalia in ‘Heller’ wrote that the right is not unlimited, as to carry anywhere, in any way. So, even ‘strict scrutiny’ apparently has an ‘out’ in it.

    Assuming SCOTUS will address the issue of scrutiny in the upcoming ‘NY Pistol’ decision, how can it be structured to keep it from being abused by the Leftists? Give those bastards a nanometer, and they will take a light-year…

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “This having to play *expensive* ‘Whack-a-Mole’ with every single bullshit anti-gun law is annoying.”

      Whack-a-mole tyranny is one of the factors that ensure the increase in tyranny over the long term. Substantial roll-back of tyranny is more likely to come from major push-back in a single generation than it ever is from incrementalism. The odds always favor the house. Governments tend to live much longer than individuals. Over generations, individual liberty loses. Government can make nearly unlimited mistakes and survive whereas one mistake can land an individual in the poorhouse, prison, grave, or all of the above.

  6. avatar David Deplorable says:

    Congrats to SAF! Yet another win.

    David Sigale might hold the record fot the most wins, but his oral arguments in the Wilson case against Cook County’s AWB case were aweful!

  7. avatar NORDNEG says:

    🔫🔫🔫 YES 🔫🔫🔫

  8. avatar barnbwt says:

    But, but, they *insisted* the building was safe! LOL

  9. avatar TFred says:

    From the order:

    “3.This Order shall have no bearing on any ESLHA rule, regulation or lease provision with respect to the possession of firearms by guestsor other non-residents on ESLHA premises.”

    So I guess non-residents still don’t have rights.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Although I do hope these fights are still fought; the true, lasting restoration of individual liberty will not come through piecemeal battles. It will require and all-out push by one generation. People are too comfortable to acknowledge that dirty little fact about societies. When they do, they then realize it is up to them to ensure their liberty. It’s an uncomfortable, or even downright frightening, thing to consider for most.

    2. avatar Nick says:

      Well, non-residents don’t have any special rights there because they’re neither tenants or owners. Tenants can’t be barred the possession of weapons in their home as it’s been held in court cases as where the 2A is most important (this is wrong, but that’s a non-sequitir). Non-residents can because they are not in their home nor do they have any rights to control the property as it’s not theirs.

      This is no different than a store banning guns on the premises or a homeowner barring a guest from visiting while armed. It would be a violation of the owner’s property rights to strike down such a rule.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        It is different because it heavily involves public funds. Wherever government money is spent in significant proportion, shall not be infringed. Inside people’s apartments, they can make the rule but outside, in the common areas, it ought not be the case for a right protected such as the RKBA.

  10. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Now just imagine if the public housing authority ban was on speech,no phones,no computers,no mail and of course there is the permit and test required even to speak or use those items,however if one resides in public housing they still do not have that right Period.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email