Pro-Gun Group Says It Has Standing To Sue Highland Park Over Gun Law

HIGHLAND PARK, IL — The pro-gun organization seeking to overturn the Highland Park's municipal assault weapons ban should not be removed as a plaintiff from the federal lawsuit it filed, the group's attorneys argued.

The National Association for Gun Rights and Highland Park resident Susan Goldman jointly filed suit in September, asking a judge to rule that the city's 2013 ordinance defining and banning certain semiautomatic weapons and magazines that hold 11 or more rounds is unconstitutional.

Goldman said she owns an AR-15 rifle and intends to purchase magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, both of which are forbidden within city limits under the municipal ban.

"I have possessed this property lawfully for years but I store it outside of the city limits because I fear prosecution under the Ordinance," Goldman said.

In a sworn declaration accompanying a motion for a preliminary injunction filed in October, Goldman said she would acquire more guns and ammunition and transfer them to others if it were not illegal.

"I am especially irreparably harmed," she said, "because the City’s prohibitions require me to store my firearm outside the city limits, which renders it useless for the defense of my home and my person, especially in light of incidents such as the recent July 4, 2022 shooting which occurred within city limits leaving seven (7) dead and more than two (2) dozen injured."

In November, attorneys for Highland Park filed a motion asking a judge to remove the National Association for Gun Rights, or NAGR, as a plaintiff from the lawsuit, arguing that the Loveland, Colorado-based group did not have associational standing.

"NAGR does not claim that it has standing to bring this suit in its own right; it does not allege any injury to itself as an entity," argued lead attorney David Hoffman. "Instead, it claims only that it has associational standing to sue 'in its capacity as a representative of its members.'"

Last week, the plaintiffs responded to the motion. Attorney Barry Arrington argued that NAGR meets the requirements for associational standing, but even if it did not, it should not be dismissed from the case as long as Goldman has standing.

"Where at least one plaintiff has standing, jurisdiction is secure and the Court should adjudicate the case whether additional plaintiffs have standing or not. The City does not challenge Plaintiff Goldman’s standing," Arrington said. "Therefore, the Court should adjudicate this case without considering whether NAGR has independent standing, and the City’s motion should be denied for that reason."

In order to have associational standing, an organization must show its members are harmed or likely to suffer harm, that the issue is relevant to the organization and that the case does not require the participation of individual members.

"Alternatively, NAGR does in fact have independent associational standing, and the Court should deny the City’s motion on that ground," Arrington concluded. "Either way, the City’s motion has no merit and should be denied."

Related:
Highland Park Woman, Pro-Gun Group Sue To Overturn Assault Weapons Ban
Pro-Gun Group Lacks Standing To Sue Highland Park, City Argues
Pritzker Aims For Assault Weapons Ban By Anniversary Of Mass Shooting

Since the Supreme Court allowed Highland Park's ordinance to stand in 2015 — over the objections of Justices Clarence Thomas and the late Antonin Scalia — there have since been four new justices appointed to the court.

And following last year's ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, also known as "Bruen," gun owners advocacy groups have filed suits in various appellate circuits around the country in an effort to get courts to strike down gun control measures in light of the decision.

In a statement following the initial complaint, Highland Park Corporation Counsel Steve Elrod was optimistic that federal judges would again uphold the local ordinance, violations of which can be punished by fines of up to $1,000.

“We remain confident that the assault weapon ban that the City of Highland Park adopted in 2013 is lawful and constitutional," Elrod said, "and that the affirmation of constitutionality by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals remains controlling precedent in our jurisdiction.”

NAGR's motion for a preliminary injunction cites language from Bruen acknowledging that "dangerous and unusual weapons" that are not "in common use" can be banned. But it argues that AR-15 style weapons, and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, are commonly used across the country.

Arrington and his Oak Brook-based co-counsel Jason Craddock contended that the 7th Circuit decision upholding Highland Park's ban — Arie S. Friedman and Illinois State Rifle Association v. City of Highland Park, Illinois — was inconsistent with Bruen.

"Accordingly, that case is no longer binding precedent," they argued, "and in rendering [its] decision on this motion, this Court must reject the Seventh Circuit’s Friedman analysis in favor of the Supreme Court’s Bruen analysis."

Highland Park is due to file a brief in opposition to the gun owners advocates by Jan. 19. The plaintiffs have until Feb. 20 to file a reply to that, and the city's response to that is due March 13.