Chicago won't shield Oak Park from NRA's legal costs

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Print

By Marty Stempniak

Staff Reporter

The city of Chicago will not shield Oak Park from paying a portion of the cost for the National Rifle Association's lawyers, despite the village board passing a resolution two years ago that said otherwise.

But Oak Park was careful to limit any potential damage while being sued by the NRA over the past three years, says the village attorney, and he expects the final bill to be minimal.

"We earnestly worked to keep that at a minimum," said Village Attorney Ray Heise.

In a dispute that date backs years, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on June 2 that the NRA has the right to recover its attorney fees from Oak Park and Chicago. One year ago, the Supreme Court struck down Oak Park and Chicago's bans on handguns, after the NRA had filed suit in 2008, looking to kill such restrictions in several Illinois communities. Chicago and Oak Park were the only municipalities that chose to fight the NRA in court, and the two municipalities ended up losing last summer.

Part of the reason that Oak Park chose to fight was because the law firm of Mayer Brown agreed to represent the village free of charge. And in March 2009, the village board passed a resolution, accepting Chicago's offer of "limited indemnification" against paying legal fees in the event that the NRA won in court.

But Heise told Wednesday Journal on Monday that Chicago's corporation counsel ultimately did not agree to indemnification. Rather, the two communities worked out an "agreement on contribution" that has Oak Park and Chicago splitting the NRA's legal fees, based on which of the gun group's legal expenses were specifically applied to fighting each town's two separate ordinances.

Oak Park's pro bono lawyers were careful in trying to defend parts of the village's handgun ban that were parallel to elements of the city's gun ordinance for that specific reason. But Heise said it will be up to the district court to figure out which of the NRA's attorney fees are "uniquely" the village's responsibilities.

"It's going to be a tedious process," Heise said, estimating that it would take at least a month. He was uncertain what the NRA's total legal bills might be, but said they're likely "substantial," as the case went before the Supreme Court.

Heise said the village has a "self-insured retention fund" that covers any lawsuit settlements up to $2 million. Oak Park also has umbrella insurance for any "catastrophic" coverage that's needed, between $2 million and $10 million, but Heise didn't expect the costs to reach that height.

Village President David Pope said the village will wait to see what the district court decides on legal fees, declining to comment further, since the case is ongoing.

"The village has done its best to limit the prospects for liability arising out of this lawsuit," he said.

An NRA spokeswoman could not provide an estimated amount of legal fees that the gun group incurred during the lawsuit, but said she doesn't expect it to be a large sum. The NRA, she said, believes the village is still too restrictive in regulating guns, but declined to say whether the NRA is considering further lawsuits.

"Even though they've repealed their handgun ban, they're still making it nearly impossible for lawful people to exercise their Second Amendment freedom, as it was intended by the Constitution," said NRA spokeswoman Rachel Parsons. "We will continue to fight those efforts by whatever means possible."

Reader Comments

106 Comments - Add Your Comment

Comment Policy

OP  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 3:07 PM

The lawsuit wasnt funded w Oak Park dollars.

CompetitiveShooter  

Posted: June 29th, 2011 2:58 PM

What is the citizens' recourse for the appointed/elected officials carelessly spending their tax dollars on this futile attempt? Maybe, huge turn over in next election...

OP  

Posted: June 23rd, 2011 12:38 PM

RJ, outlaw GUNS everywhere and you will see crime go down everywhere.

Bob from IL.  

Posted: June 23rd, 2011 9:07 AM

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound. Remember the police do not protect you... they come after the crime as been committed. Bob

RJ from South Jordan, UT  

Posted: June 21st, 2011 4:41 PM

Peace might prevail if you can be assured that criminals will adhere to legal gun bans. Rather I suspect they'll come into your community, unbeknownst to your LEO. Who will protect you then? How has Mayor Daily's plans for gun bans helped reduce violent crimes? What do the statistics say? How do you equate gun bans in England and thier high rate of violent crimes. It seems there is a strong inverse relationship between a legally armed and educated citizenry and the reduction in violent crimes.

OP  

Posted: June 20th, 2011 5:40 PM

Peace will prevail

jdberger  

Posted: June 20th, 2011 4:58 PM

Oak Park is just the lastest in a long list of cities who've been burned for following the advice of the Brady Campaign, Legal Community Against Violence and like organizations. It's a shame that they were suckered into supporting a bankrupt political agenda. Oak Park could probably have better spent that money on teachers, cops, firemen and librarians instead of lawyers.

epic lulz  

Posted: June 20th, 2011 4:38 PM

"you can't keep us from protecting ourselves in whatever way we deem necessary." More evidence that gun fetishists know nothing about the US Constitution. Even the activist rightwing Roberts court agrees that there are limits.

epic lulz  

Posted: June 20th, 2011 4:36 PM

I whole heartedly disagree with the WJ sanitizing the comments of violent and racist gun fetishists. That only serves to make them look less crazy than they really are. The community is best served knowing what these people believe. If you need to remove comments because they contain threats, etc., at least post a summary of what it was you removed, eg., "Removed violent threat from gun supporter".

OP Resident  

Posted: June 20th, 2011 3:06 PM

Thanks for your prompt attention. Please note that a similar comment was posted on 6/18 @ 9:10pm and should also be deleted. What motivates someone to prove their ignorance in a public forum?

OP Resident  

Posted: June 20th, 2011 10:41 AM

Wednesday Journal- Please delete 6/19 12:09pm post.

You're Not Above the Constitution from Oak Park  

Posted: June 19th, 2011 1:38 PM

The uber-liberals who run this town need to understand that their personal politics don't apply to everyone just because we happen to live here. You can approve a housing project, you can hire a pacifist police force that can't find criminals or protect us, you can tax us to oblivion with your ridiculous civic projects, but you can't keep us from protecting ourselves in whatever way we deem necessary. Sorry you don't like it -- but let me repeat what I'm told if I complain: "feel free to move"

AL from Oak Park  

Posted: June 19th, 2011 8:17 AM

I'm sorry but if someone is trying to break in my house or is attempting to do me bodily harm, I WILL shoot them. We don't live in an utopia. People are flawed. I have the RIGHT to protect and defend myself.

OP  

Posted: June 19th, 2011 12:36 AM

Sunday Suntimes is a perfect example. Speaks to gun killings in an area since 2007. http://www.suntimes.com/6017551-417/test-of-nerves-at-dangerous-street-corner-in-humboldt-park.html

OP  

Posted: June 18th, 2011 11:24 PM

Ahhh, lets check the headlines to see how many people this weekend were innocent victims of gun fire. Take the guns away.

J.G.Morales  

Posted: June 18th, 2011 10:59 PM

Blade, what you stated about the cause of the various gun bans across the country is correct. But let's not forget why the so-called "negroes" had to pick up guns in the first place. ;-) Tsk. Tsk.

OP  

Posted: June 18th, 2011 4:52 PM

I have never shot a gun, never wanted to and never needed to. I dont intend to in the future either. The less guns in and on our streets will make for a safer place for all.

Arlie Austin from Ft Worth  

Posted: June 18th, 2011 9:29 AM

I have been shooting since I was 4, hunting since I was 10, I started carrying a pistol at 16, I was a Tactical Medic for our police Dept. and have shot with our cops at traing on many occasions, I consistantly out scored our police officers! cops yhave a dangerous jobs and I don't demean them but living in our "modern society" is dangerous for everybody! The U.S. Supreme court has already ruled the Police have NO obligation to protect you as an individual, only society as a whole!

Sure  

Posted: June 18th, 2011 5:30 AM

Eureka! Do you get it now?! Private citizens actually have the right to own hand guns for the same reason... to protect themselves and their loved ones from the idiot people who use them. The police can't be everywhere, and this country was not set up with the police being everywhere in mind. If there weren't any guns anywhere, the police would not need them at all.

OP  

Posted: June 18th, 2011 4:47 AM

The police carry guns to protect the innocent people against the idiot people who use them. If there weren't any guns for (anyone), there would be a lot less of a need for PO's to have them. You're right!

Sure from heil gun control  

Posted: June 17th, 2011 7:50 PM

You're so right, OP. How could I've been so blind?! I've always suspected that police officers and government might be stupid, and now you've shown me it's true. Yes, OP, your logic is far superior. Don't these stupid cops know they're being stupid by carrying guns?! Soldiers with their false sense of security carrying extensions of their manhood. Maybe Cypress Hill wanted to shoot cops because they carry guns, which is ignorant and irresponsible! Pigs are the enemy of liberal wisdom!

OP  

Posted: June 17th, 2011 1:39 PM

Coop2 Thats your problem. Dont ever call the police.

Coop2  

Posted: June 17th, 2011 1:07 PM

OP You logic on this issue is idealistic. we do not live in the world that you imagine you live in. Personal protection is a basic human right and you do not believe in that. So be it. Just don't deny my rights that are in the constitution because you feel you have a right to feel safe. You don't have a right to feel safe. The police are not required to keep you safe. That is your personal responsibility. I do not depend on the police for my personal safety or my families safety. we disagree!

Violent Crime Victim  

Posted: June 17th, 2011 10:40 AM

How do you anti-gun people feel about the ability to carry a stun gun or taser as personal protection? They don't kill, many come with kill switches (e.g. - can't be used if taken away from you)and give the victim the chance to get away. Right now it's illegal to carry a stun gun or even own one without a FOID card.

OP  

Posted: June 17th, 2011 8:17 AM

Guns are not anywhere close in comparison to a smoke/fire detector. Those devices cant kill anyone, guns do. Gun security is a mirage. Only the NRA will have you believe your so much safer with a gun- Not

OP  

Posted: June 17th, 2011 8:13 AM

06? What happened there?

Sure  

Posted: June 17th, 2011 2:22 AM

Your point was the equivalent of saying "I don't need a smoke detector because most fire stations don't burn down."

Sure  

Posted: June 17th, 2011 1:59 AM

There was also one in '06, and I'm sure others. Your point is totally lost to the facts. Used or unused, OPPD still feels the *NEED* to carry them. If they didn't (while it still wouldn't carry any merit) your point would have least made sense. It doesn't matter how many they've shot if they feel the NEED to carry them. Duh. This isn't about the right to go on a shooting spree, but the right and "need" to own a firearm.

OP  

Posted: June 17th, 2011 12:40 AM

My point is that if the OPPD doesnt have this huge need to shoot and kill, why should we?

OP  

Posted: June 17th, 2011 12:35 AM

I can remember one [1] time in my lifetime that an OP PO shot and killed a person for trying to grab the PO's weapon while being chased in Berwyn for stealing a U Haul and then running from police in car and then on foot where he was chased down a gang way.

Sure  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 10:40 PM

@OP- I bet they'd be so much happier and feel so much safer if they didn't have to carry guns at all. I mean, that's why they leave their firearms at the station, right? OPPD rides around like this is Mayberry, I'm sure. One bullet in the front pocket like Barney anyone?

OP  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 10:18 PM

I bet you could count on 1 hand how many times the Oak Park police have actually had to use their weapons and fire a shot in the last 20 years? Anyone?

William Tipton  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 4:38 PM

Huh. Seems that posts are being deleted already. Not my cup of tea being censored and all. Y'all have a nice discussion..

coop2  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 4:31 PM

Reading your local crime reports. OP police are doing a pretty good job but they cannot be everywhere. I would say time to change your methods because status quo is not working for your neck of the woods. Most Rank and file LEO's may support gun rights in your community.Ask them. They see it all.

coop2  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 4:23 PM

OP http://www.scribd.com/doc/51067477/Guns-Save-Lives-Truck-Brochure also:FBI http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

William Tipton  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 4:13 PM

"Gun shootouts? Perfect, just what society needs ========== Thanks to FELONS we already have all that, pal. What YOU seem to be against is LAW ABIDING INNOCENT citizens being helpless victims. Shame on YOU!

OP  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 4:08 PM

Gun shootouts? Perfect, just what society needs

OP  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 4:07 PM

The person with the gun gets fired at first. So I am not so sure you'd be the hero.

William Tipton  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 4:05 PM

"William Tipton you are my hero!"=========== The sad thing is that if your family were being threatened *I* would be there with my gun to defend you. Clearly you cant offer the same.

OP  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 4:03 PM

William Tipton you are my hero!

William Tipton  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 3:55 PM

"How much monies in the NRA coffers? Ha Ha Time to pay dues again. NRA has helped more guns to be on our streets and have attributed to innocent people perishing. Shame on the NRA ========= Oh YAWN....tell that to this woman....http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_NJQK2BscIg

William Tipton  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 3:50 PM

You know what Id like to see is the FIRST amendment restricted so you anti gun nuts wouldnt be allowed to speak your minds. Oh, but that would be violating YOUR rights.... ;-)

William Tipton  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 3:49 PM

"So who does the NRA represent? Who funds them? " ================================ Its millions of gun owners like me, who vote and keep you folks from destroying this country.

Rich  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 3:48 PM

OP: I've been in Oak Park for over 30 years and have had handguns for the entire time. I really don't care if other citizens of the community like it or not. I'm not willing to give up the ability to protect myself and my family, ordinance or no ordinance. Maybe you haven't noticed, but Oak Park isn't the idyllic community you may envision in your mind. Wish it were, but it's not. I think our police dept. does an excellent job, but they can't be everywhere.

William Tipton  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 3:43 PM

Guns have one purpose only- To kill. More people die everyday as innocent victims of hand guns than are protected by them. =============================== Huh.....really?...I guess youd better let all those cops out there know that they are nothing but killers since YOU claim that guns only have ONE purpose.....see where illogical nonsense gets you?

William Tipton  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 3:40 PM

"Kristopher, You have all the right not to live in Oak Park if thats what you choose. You have all the right to live where they want guns in their community. " =============== Just as YOU have the right to move to some socialist country that doesnt allow guns. WE have the RIGHT to bear arms and if you cant handle that maybe the United States just isnt for you.

J.oak park  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 3:32 PM

@coop2, can you please provide a link to or the published study the data on 219 lives saved everyday.

Coop2  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 3:03 PM

OP- you may want to get your facts checked. 2191 lives are saved everyday in the US by legal gun owners and in most cases no shots fired or gun drawn. And who is doing the shooting? Criminals who cannot legally possess a firearm. If you are in fear of guns, let me take you to the range and I will educate you on basic firearm safety. You might even enjoy it. Or maybe someone else you know may want to take you.

OP  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 2:45 PM

Kristopher, You have all the right not to live in Oak Park if thats what you choose. You have all the right to live where they want guns in their community.

Kristopher  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 2:41 PM

OP: The NRA represents me ... and I do hope they legally punish the snot out of The town and citizens of Oak Park for attempting to restrict my basic human right to self defense. Such object lessons are useful. And you may want to remember this the next time some big city makes a bunch of verbal promises in order to get support from a small town council for a questionable act.

Coop2  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 2:35 PM

Observation: Is it me or is 90% of all the comments on this issue pro second amendment. Even most OP citizens realize their money is being wasted and their rights denied. Even Hemingway was an NRA member.

OP  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 2:21 PM

Guns have one purpose only- To kill. More people die everyday as innocent victims of hand guns than are protected by them.

JoshC  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 2:10 PM

Appending on to Coop2's point about carrying a gun being easier than carrying a cop - remember, the police are under no obligation to protect you from a crime. (Warren vs District of Columbia, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department)

coop2  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 2:05 PM

OK, I get it. It is OK for Illinois but I do not want it in my back yard. That would be OK if it did not impact all Illinoisans. But it does. You can legally carry in River Forest but as soon as you cross the line into Oak Park or Chicago, you are a felon. That will not work for the entire state. Not everyone will conceal carry in Oak Park but, they should have the right and option to carry for their protection if the situation should arise. Gun free zones make everyone a possible victim.

OP  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 1:32 PM

So who does the NRA represent? Who funds them?

Monte  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 1:11 PM

@OP: The possibility that there may or may not be very many NRA members in Oak Park does not give them the right to violate the constitution.

OP  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 12:30 PM

The irony is that there probably are not that many NRA members in Oak Park and most Oak Parkers dont want guns. Yet, the NRA sues on behalf of themselves-not (most)Oak Parker's. So who really won? Strange indeed.

Coop2  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 9:11 AM

It is your Oak Park and Chicago that is supressing their law abiding citizens from exercising their rights in the name of public safety. Oak Parks anti gun position threatens the safety of every everyone in the state except your gang bangers, who by the way, just had another shootout in your town. They don't care what laws you have. The rest of the state is directly affected by actions of 2 communities. Even the downstate and suburban Dems get it.

Tim Fry from Joliet Native, left the police state  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 8:06 AM

I think it's too bad this doesn't seem to have a chance of bankrupting Oak Park. After doing this to the rights of the citizens they were charged with protecting, then to continue doing it after they were shown the error of their ways ... geez. Hopefully they'll take it out of the pensions of the City Fathers!

opie  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 7:25 AM

I am beginning to think that google alerts is the worst thing to happen to the internet. Brings out all the goofballs.

Facts not hysteria  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 3:50 AM

Jim, those "stats" you refer to say nothing of the sort. It sounds like you are using Arthur Kellermann's utterly discredited "43 times more likely" claim---which was actually "a person is 43 times more likely to be murdered by a criminal than that person is to KILL a criminal in their home." Never mind that 99.99% of self-defense uses of a gun don't involve killing the criminal, or even firing a shot. Even Kellermann said he'd want his wife to have a .38 if a criminal broke in his home

Earn? from Chicago  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 3:45 AM

Pay up, losers. You wanted to keep us unarmed and unable to defend our families from vicious criminals. That makes you an accessory to every act of thugs in the state of Illinois. Be grateful all we're coming for *this time* is some money for legal bills.

Jim Coughlin  

Posted: June 16th, 2011 1:42 AM

The point as I understand it is that a handgun is needed for personal protection. It serves as an effective deterrent to crime and the best response to a life threatening situation or to protect property. My chief concern relates to the stats showing a gun in the home is more likely to be used against a member of the household. Young children and adolescents are most vulnerable. In fact, it's the second leading cause of accidental death for those age groups. How has the NRA addressed that issue?

Coop2  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 11:09 PM

Guns have no use in an urban environment, except for the criminals. Thank you you prove my point. Guns exist in OP. Criminals and LEO are the only ones who have them. The rest of us are on our own to protect ourselves. Carrying a gun for my personal protection is easier than carrying a cop. Personal protection for me and my family is a God given right and guaranteed in the constitution, wether in Chicago or OP, or in Mattoon.

Monte  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 10:12 PM

@Opie: "Handguns have no business in an urban environment like ours." Of course they do. They're one of the most effective methods of protecting oneself. You may have noticed that the police use them for that very purpose.

Jay Hanig from Topsail Beach, NC  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 10:05 PM

Your town has this coming. I don't know where your politicians got the idea that the Constitution doesn't apply to its citizens but they are sadly mistaken. The Constitution is not there to be cherry picked where you can choose which parts to honor and which parts to ignore. Putting guns in the hands of honest citizens isn't going to increase your level of crime. Your bad guys are already armed; the field will now be equalized. Bad guys are no longer guaranteed an easy victim.

opie  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 8:01 PM

I can see your point, but it's not like that money was budgeted for something else. Yes, we will have to refill that hole. Still, I think it was a noble cause. Handguns have no business in an urban environment like ours. I think it's funny that so many conservatives believe in local control, except on this one issue.

Coop2  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 7:50 PM

Opie, 2 million dollars set aside is just a waste of tax payer money no matter how you look at it. I think you are suffering from the "not in my back yard syndrome". Conceal carry will come to all of Illinois sooner or later. The question you need to ask yourself is how much will it cost op & Chicago to keep wasting tax payer money to fight a losing battle.

Mookie from Chicago  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 7:27 PM

Congrats, NRA. Shame on Chicago & Oak Park for violating... and continuing to violate... our second amendment rights. Next up, everyone from Illinois will be paying SAF, ISRA and NRA for additional legal fees, and free citizens in this state will be able to conceal carry and practice in Chicago gun ranges in the not so far future! How you like them apples.

opie  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 6:10 PM

Right, It's money that is already set aside for that purpose. Not being used for anything else.

Bill of Rights  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 5:22 PM

@opie - per the article, insurance would only kick in after OP taxpayers cover the first $2M.

Bill of Rights  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 5:20 PM

I can't help but think that a big part of the Village Trustees' motivation in approving this lawsuit despite its high cost to taxpayers (and pointless, in light of Chi. as co-Def.) is part of the wider trend we've seen of their seeking to bolster their partisan credentials by backing prototypical causes, no matter the negative impact on constituents. This is one example. Approving Comcast/Interfaith SRO over neighborhood opposition (and scolding said neighbors for so opposing) is another.

Paddy Bauler  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 5:00 PM

The Chicago city council and Oak Park village board, or trustees or whatever they call themselves, should be held criminally liable for wasting taxpayer dollars fighting what they admitted was a losing battle. I expected Oak Park to be a little more Constitutionally aware. Full of people who are sensitive to peoples civil and constitutional rights. Time to pay the piper.

opie  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 4:52 PM

I don't understand why this is such a big deal. From the article, it looks like there is up to $12million in insurance to cover something like this? All this talk of "Frog-walking" and revenge are just silly. Get over yourself and worry about stuff in your own neck of the woods.

Bob  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 4:14 PM

Commenter: The NRA fees are not the ones Oak Park should be concerned about. The actual case was primarily fought by attorney Alan Gura of the Second Amendment Foundatio

Bob  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 4:13 PM

OP: Where are the Civil Rights of the innocent people killed by guns in this here U S of A? Guns gotta Go. Killings will go down. Chicago has had one of the toughest gun control policies in the country for over thirty years. How well is that working for Chicago? The Chicago gun ban has been completely and utterly ineffective. Commenter: The NRA fees are not the ones Oak Park should be concerned about. The actual case was primarily fought by attorney Alan Gura of the Second Amendment Foundatio

jo  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 3:35 PM

Wow, there's a lot of crazy in here.

the punisher  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 3:12 PM

Yes "OP"%u2014where are the civil rights of ALL crime victims where the lame-duck Illinois legislature eliminated the death penalty late last year? For all you bleeding-heart criminal lovers and gun haters, the cops and prosecutors have no deterrent to lock up murders for life even if the courts and juries don't apply the death sentence. Instead, the legislature cuts law enforcement's budgets and raises taxes while the same solons live in luxury w/ all their perks.

Coop2 from St. Charles  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 3:02 PM

Oak Park I want you to pay and pay and pay till it hurts. That will get your attention. Keep fighting this issue. I would like to see federal marshals frog march your leaders to the slammer for violating SCOTUS rulings. People of Illinois are fed up with Chicago & Oak Park violating our rights that are enjoyed by every other state in the Union. Way to go SAF & NRA!

OP  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 2:47 PM

Where are the Civil Rights of the innocent people killed by guns in this here U S of A? Guns gotta Go. Killings will go down.

Montana Libertarian  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 2:00 PM

Phil of Good Ideas: . Actually, real tort reform needs to include a provision whereby the plaintiff losers in a civil suit always pay the court costs of the winning respondents. . British law has this provision, and it works well to prevent nuisance and frivolous lawsuits. . Viva NRA!

Tony K from Houston  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 12:34 PM

Us "Gun Nuts" applaud the NRA (and more so the Second Amendment Foundation) for their success in stopping Chicago and Oak Park from knowingly (arrogantly) violating the civil rights of citizens. If you didn't let your ideology take precedence over the constitution, just like your politicians, you would be happy with this success as well.

OP  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 12:30 PM

How much monies in the NRA coffers? Ha Ha Time to pay dues again. NRA has helped more guns to be on our streets and have attributed to innocent people perishing. Shame on the NRA

L D S from Evanston  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 12:24 PM

Oak Park Residents, Congratualtions! Your elected leaders just spent $100 for every citizen in your city to fight this ordinance. Remember that on election day - its your money they spent.

Phil of Good Ideas  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 10:51 AM

All the gun nuts here applaud the NRA lawyers getting paid, but they are the same people ideologically that want tort reform so the evil lawyers won't get paid. Lawyers are bad until your ox is gored. I like guns because the make me feel bigger than I am.

Montana Libertarian  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 10:47 AM

For a small city to decide to abrogate a clearly delineated constitutional right: beyond foolish. For the city fathers to imagine Chicago pols would keep their word: beyond brain dead.

Bill of Rights  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 9:57 AM

I share other commenters's grave concerns about the respect for civil rights in OP. The futile defense, at taxpayer expense, of a clearly unconstitutional ordinance after the Supreme Court strongly telegraphed the result in Heller is one example. The arrest of an OPRF student for conduct that was purely speech (protected by the 1st amendment, however offensive) is another. Most elected and public safety officials take some sort of oath to defend and uphold the U.S. Constitution. Not in OP?

Carl from Amherst  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 9:43 AM

You trusted Chicago politicians? Silly you!

Dan in OP  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 9:43 AM

So President Pope says VOP did its best to limit the prospects for liability arising out of this lawsuit. Really? I say staying out of the lawsuit would have limited the liability even further, all the way to zero. Also, the self insured retention fund mentioned in the article is just code for taxpayer money. VOP is broke when it comes to funding crossing guards for school kids, but apparently has 2 million dollars set aside to spend on its gun ideology.

Kevin  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 9:38 AM

If politicians would stop passing illegal laws, we wouldn't have this problem. But it is OUR fault. We elected them into office and unfortunately we will have the pay for their actions.

jo  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 8:41 AM

who knew Dr. Phil posted on this forum?

Rich from oak park  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 8:26 AM

Both cities were foolish for backing a losing cause and now they will have to pay. Perhaps politicians will now be a little more careful when trying to deny citizens their constitutional rights. That should be the case, but I doubt it will be. Until the money starts coming out of their own pockets we will continue to see politicians backing failed policies. Chicago still has one of the toughest gun control policies in the country. How well is that working for you Chicago?

jo  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 8:14 AM

Right. Nazis (eyeroll).

daniel  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 8:03 AM

Why act like this is the fault of the NRA? After the Heller v. DC decision, the writing was on the wall. Both Oak Park and Chicago chose to violate the civil rights of their citizens, just as surely as if they'd passed a law compelling blacks to ride in the back of the bus. Better wise up and stop electing Nazis.

jo  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 7:53 AM

Sometimes I think people move to Oak Park so they can have an audience for their griping. 10k more people, and most of these voices would just be a faint background buzzing, like the mosquito zapper at a mini-golf park.

Chris  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 7:24 AM

You should think of the children next time you elect politicians who make stupid laws. Organizations will continue to take your tax money away from schools, roads, public services, and divert them to fund the legal expenses of the Second Amendment lawsuit machines. Don't appreciate it? Stop supporting unconstitutional laws via crap politicians. Winning!

Commenter  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 7:11 AM

The NRA fees are not the ones Oak Park should be concerned about. The actual case was primarily fought by attorney Alan Gura of the Second Amendment Foundation. The NRA and SAF each had a case and the Supreme Court chose the Gura case to be the "lead" case; the NRA's effort was then much reduced. The NRA was not lead. The SAF's fees were well over $3 Million in DC for Heller. The McDonald case took even more work. You are probably looking at $3-4 Million total. Lesson: Don't abuse civil rights.

Monte  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 2:48 AM

@J.G. Morales: Sadly, you're correct. It is the people of Oak Park who will have to open their checkbooks. The best we can hope for is that enough of them will remember those elected officials who made the decision to fight to unconstitutionally restrict their residents and send them packing during the next election ... if not sooner, perhaps via a recall.

Monte  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 2:42 AM

@Mr. Borderman from Oak Park: Please, explain to us how one person's suggestion that the NRA will sue to protect the peoples' constitutionally protected right to arms equals threatening citizens. Also, please explain how those comments from one person who may not have any connection at all to the NRA makes the NRA a terrorist organization. Perhaps you're letting your own bias and preconceived notions of firearms, firearms owners and the NRA color your reading of his comment?

Mr. Borderman from Oak Park   

Posted: June 15th, 2011 1:04 AM

Gee, Steve, stop threatening citizens who disagree with you. This just confirms what we all know: the NRA is a terrorist organization.

steve  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 12:26 AM

STOP being ANTI 2nd amendment and the NRA will leave you alone. The citizens of Oak Park are paying for the stupidity of it's elected officials.

J.G.Morales  

Posted: June 15th, 2011 12:02 AM

A lesson? Really? To whom? The tax payers? When "Oak Park" pays, it's we the citizens who are actually paying...

ZL  

Posted: June 14th, 2011 11:38 PM

That's what you get for trying to take away the right of self protection. Let this be a lesson to others who try this: YOU WILL LOSE.

JBS from northwest-suburb  

Posted: June 14th, 2011 11:31 PM

The NRA lawyers deserve generous compensation for their wonderful job of putting pompous politicians in their place.

OP  

Posted: June 14th, 2011 10:47 PM

The NRA has blood on their hands.

Bob  

Posted: June 14th, 2011 10:44 PM

I hope Oak Park pays through the nose for violating citizen's rights all these years, so they don't have the money or the will to continue to try to defend violating our rights.

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.


            
SubscribeClassifieds
Photo storeContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor

Latest Comments