Jump to content


Photo

People v. Brown - FOID ruled unconstituional in IL District Court


  • Please log in to reply
197 replies to this topic

#181 springfield shooter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 16

Posted 13 June 2019 - 08:53 AM

 

 

^^^^
The anti-gun people will be out and there will be propaganda all over social media on how this decision could turn Illinois into the Wild West etc. keeping those people in check and engaging them is a must.

It wont turn us into the Wild West, it will just make Illinois like any other state in the union that does not require the card. Like with concealed carry, the Illinois politicians are so arrogant that they think they are wiser than the politicians in every other state.
Didnt hear much after the shootouts and blood running in streets events did not happen after passing CCL. They like to point to the handful of states remotely similar instead of the other 40+ that arent set up like IL yet do not have their issues. Its sad that most of these legislators know nothing about firearms and arent interested in educating themselves before introducing a bill that does nothing but feels good.

 

 

I think for at least some of them it goes beyond feeling good (though I don't discount that). I'd be curious how many of the "true believers" would lose a little fervency if there was zero chance of tangible gain. 


"I can't spare this man. He fights."  Abraham Lincoln


#182 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,468 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 14 June 2019 - 01:45 AM

From the appellate response brief:

...
So the State not only wishes to unconstitutionally force lawful firearm users to go through its requirements simply to be able to defend their own homes, but the State is now arguing that everyone in the house should be forced to fulfill those requirements or, presumably, face criminal penalties. Since it is unconstitutional to force the licensing scheme upon the homeowner, forcing said scheme upon non-firearm-using residents is an outrageous suggestion which exposes the State's true intentions as to the infringements of the FOID Card system. This Court should emphatically reject the State's assertion.
...
In light of the above, the Defendant-Appellee ... respectfully requests this Honorable Court to affirm the Orders of the circuit court that 430 ILCS 65(a)(2), as-applied to her, unconstitutionally infringes on her Second Amendment rights, as it does upon law-abiding persons who wish to possess a long gun in their homes for lawful purposes ...


I haven't read the Plaintiff's case, but apparently the State is arguing that all people with access to an unsecured firearm (i.e., everyone in a household where a firearm exists) must possess a FOID on or about their person at all times when they have said access, otherwise they would be in violation of the FOID Act. Sigale is asking the court to rule on that non-legislated expansion of the FOID Act (presumably to keep it out of case law).

Additionally, this case won't "Void the FOID" as some people would like it to do. It would only suspend the requirement to possess a FOID for long guns kept exclusively in the home. It would leave in place the requirement to possess a FOID for handguns anywhere and for long guns outside the home.

Also, I think he means 430 ILCS 65/2(a), not 430 ILCS 65(a)(2). Hopefully the court will be forgiving of typos.

Edited by Euler, 14 June 2019 - 01:55 AM.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#183 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,969 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 14 June 2019 - 05:29 AM

From the appellate response brief:...So the State not only wishes to unconstitutionally force lawful firearm users to go through its requirements simply to be able to defend their own homes, but the State is now arguing that everyone in the house should be forced to fulfill those requirements or, presumably, face criminal penalties. Since it is unconstitutional to force the licensing scheme upon the homeowner, forcing said scheme upon non-firearm-using residents is an outrageous suggestion which exposes the State's true intentions as to the infringements of the FOID Card system. This Court should emphatically reject the State's assertion....In light of the above, the Defendant-Appellee ... respectfully requests this Honorable Court to affirm the Orders of the circuit court that 430 ILCS 65(a)(2), as-applied to her, unconstitutionally infringes on her Second Amendment rights, as it does upon law-abiding persons who wish to possess a long gun in their homes for lawful purposes ...I haven't read the Plaintiff's case, but apparently the State is arguing that all people with access to an unsecured firearm (i.e., everyone in a household where a firearm exists) must possess a FOID on or about their person at all times when they have said access, otherwise they would be in violation of the FOID Act. Sigale is asking the court to rule on that non-legislated expansion of the FOID Act (presumably to keep it out of case law).Additionally, this case won't "Void the FOID" as some people would like it to do. It would only suspend the requirement to possess a FOID for long guns kept exclusively in the home. It would leave in place the requirement to possess a FOID for handguns anywhere and for long guns outside the home.Also, I think he means 430 ILCS 65/2(a), not 430 ILCS 65(a)(2). Hopefully the court will be forgiving of typos.


By logical extension possession of handguns would be included as per Heller they are the ‘ quintessential ‘ tool of self-defense. Transport to and from the range, the gun shop, or repair shop would also be logically included by extension through Ezell.

With the exception of the fee in order to exercise a constitutional right, upholding the circuit court judges decision would basically reset the FOID act back to the way it was when it was originally passed.


^ this ***

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#184 Bitter Clinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,077 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 14

Posted 14 June 2019 - 08:25 AM

“The problem, of course, is if you have to transfer it to and from and that was not covered in this case, so you’d still need a FOID card,” Pearson said.

 

I don't get this.  If the FOID is unconstitutional, then why would you need it for anything.  I'm also concerned as to how the original ruling stated that it was unconstitutional "in this particular case".  Do we have a 2nd amendment civil right or don't we?  Do we have equal application of the law, or don't we?

Why are these cases trying to narrow the rulings down to a very specific, tiny thing?

 

If I still need to have a FOID to buy, possess or "transfer to and from" a firearm or ammunition, then what's the point?

So I may not need a FOID to keep a firearm "in my home", but I'll need it if I ever want to take it out of my home?  The whole thing is absurd.



#185 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,428 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 14 June 2019 - 08:37 AM

I don't know, but the last couple of posts confuse me?  I thought the objective of this case was to render the FOID entirely as unconstitutional?  I'm not sure if someone is misinterpreting the briefs, but sounds like some serious backpeddling?  Why would he allow the parsing out of long gun instead of insisting on the word of 'firearm' that covers all?  That basically undermines the big picture objective. So now the argument is only for the right to have a rifle without a FOID in your home only, but for anything else you need it?  What's the point?


Edited by mrmagloo, 14 June 2019 - 08:40 AM.


#186 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 15,985 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 14 June 2019 - 08:54 AM

This case has a very narrow scope that is intended to go after the very basic right of 'in the home', just as the Heller case did. It lays groundwork for future challenges.

Plus only issues raised in the initial case can be addressed in the appeal. New issues and arguments are not allowed.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#187 Mick G

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,066 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 14 June 2019 - 08:59 AM

This case has a very narrow scope that is intended to go after the very basic right of 'in the home', just as the Heller case did. It lays groundwork for future challenges.

Plus only issues raised in the initial case can be addressed in the appeal.

The VOID the FOID is going to be cases like this. Baby steps instead of one whopping huge blow.

The point is many little battles until we win the war.



#188 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,428 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 14 June 2019 - 09:22 AM

This case has a very narrow scope that is intended to go after the very basic right of 'in the home', just as the Heller case did. It lays groundwork for future challenges.

Plus only issues raised in the initial case can be addressed in the appeal. New issues and arguments are not allowed.

 

My point is, look at the very first post in this thread.  The key points of contention then was, the FOID Act was unconstitutional in regards to the licensing and taxing requirement to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition in your own home. And, Judge ruled requiring a license and charging a fee/tax  to exercise a Constitutional right in the home unconstitutional.  Note the word FIREARM - Not, long gun.

 

So naturally, when you already have a win saying that a fee or tax, or other limitation infringing on your right to have a Firearm or Ammunition in your home, why wouldn't we continue that with that same argument, and NOT on our own, start diluting our position by now dropping every thing but long arms?  And, what happened to the ammo?  The key point being there is, if it's legal to have ammo in your home, it has to be legal to purchase as well without a FOID.  At that point, the entire FOID crumbles.  However, with this sudden dilution, the key points that would have gutted the FOID just went out the window? Why??  We are in the process of winning the Superbowl, and at the same time, killing this new house FOID bill they passed, and now we want to start giving away our leverage?  I don't get it?


Edited by mrmagloo, 14 June 2019 - 09:24 AM.


#189 TRJ

    The Original TRJ, Accept No Impostors

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,561 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 14

Posted 14 June 2019 - 01:40 PM

If the FOID is necessary to transport after this case, perhaps it becomes the functional equivalent to the NYC permit (the one being challenged in the USSC). If that case goes our way, FOID gets nuked.


Edited by TRJ, 14 June 2019 - 01:47 PM.


#190 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,468 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 14 June 2019 - 02:13 PM

If the FOID is necessary to transport after this case, perhps it becomes the functional equivalent to the NYC permit being challenged in the USSC. If that case goes our way, FOID gets nuked.


In the NYSRPA case, possession of a "permit" actually prohibits transporting firearms. In IL, a FOID (which is effectively a permit) allows state residents to transport firearms. There would have to be a couple dots in-between to connect those two, although the arguments would be similar.

The NYSRPA case is set up to decide that being prohibited from transporting a legally owned handgun beyond the home is a 2nd Amendment violation.

If a FOID is no longer required to keep a long gun in the home, then requiring a FOID to transport a long gun outside the home is a 2nd Amendment violation using the same arguments. It wouldn't follow the NYSRPA precedent. It would be a new precedent with the same arguments.

It would only apply to long guns, though, which seems artificial to me. Both long guns and handguns go bang when you pull the switch, and the issue would still be just transport, not carry. The only difference is the size of the enclosing case (no pun intended).

Task vs. goal orientation: If you can't complete the tasks, you will never reach the goal.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#191 crufflesmuth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 172 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 16

Posted 15 June 2019 - 10:38 AM

The way I see it, this case may go two ways:

 

1. Partial strike down = FOID continues to exist, but ONLY as a permit to purchase and NOT a requisite for mere possession

 

2. Full strike down = no more FOID

 

In the case of the second scenario, many problems would arise (can't list them here though)


Edited by crufflesmuth, 15 June 2019 - 10:39 AM.


#192 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 15 June 2019 - 11:24 AM

The way I see it, this case may go two ways:

 

1. Partial strike down = FOID continues to exist, but ONLY as a permit to purchase and NOT a requisite for mere possession

 

2. Full strike down = no more FOID

 

In the case of the second scenario, many problems would arise (can't list them here though)

What is your single, worst case scenario, if a "Full strike down" happens?



#193 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,969 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 15 June 2019 - 11:51 AM


The way I see it, this case may go two ways:
 
1. Partial strike down = FOID continues to exist, but ONLY as a permit to purchase and NOT a requisite for mere possession
 
2. Full strike down = no more FOID
 
In the case of the second scenario, many problems would arise (can't list them here though)


What is your single, worst case scenario, if a "Full strike down" happens?


Without the FOID criminals will have access to firearms. WAIT! Criminals had just as much access to guns under FOID. So that’s not it.

Realistically there is no downside to striking the FOID! Background check still take place when you buy guns from the dealer. Murder is still murder armed robbery is still armed robbery. and state storm troopers don’t break down my door retrieving guns because I have an expired permission slip.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#194 TRJ

    The Original TRJ, Accept No Impostors

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,561 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 14

Posted 15 June 2019 - 11:55 AM

 

The way I see it, this case may go two ways:

 

1. Partial strike down = FOID continues to exist, but ONLY as a permit to purchase and NOT a requisite for mere possession

 

2. Full strike down = no more FOID

 

In the case of the second scenario, many problems would arise (can't list them here though)

What is your single, worst case scenario, if a "Full strike down" happens?

 

Unfortunately, I think it falls under the advise we get to not discuss specifics of things of this nature openly on the board. 

Perhaps it would suffice to say that everything "gun and ammunition" in Illinois is woven through the FOID laws so CCL, purchase, possession, records management etc would all need to be re-worked. Our current legislature would be all too happy to re-work FOID restrictions and fee schedules into something else that just barely passes muster with the court and further screws the law abiding. 



#195 Badger52

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 19

Posted 15 June 2019 - 01:57 PM

...re-work FOID restrictions and fee schedules into something else that just barely passes muster with the court and further screws the law abiding.

 

From the bleachers cheering you all on, I would agree with this assessment, sad as it is.  The list is long of state cases that basically surveyed what they thought the peasants would tolerate, the way another pending case in another jurisdiction was likely to go, and then did some revision that rendered the pending case moot.  While it's wending its way I'd be reluctant to start doing too much public dissection, tempting as it is.  FOID  is the right answer.  Anything less than FOID they'd regard as a win because we all know it's not about rational thought processes.

Y'all are on my prayer list though... :)


Edited by Badger52, 15 June 2019 - 01:57 PM.


#196 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,745 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 15 June 2019 - 06:09 PM

Unfortunately, I think it falls under the advise we get to not discuss specifics of things of this nature openly on the board.
^^^^^^^^ THIS. We all know they troll this board. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#197 gunuser17

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPip
  • 145 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 17

Posted 15 June 2019 - 06:13 PM

You could end up with California's new ammo laws requiring a paid background check with every ammo purchase and all purchases have to go thru ffl effective 7/1.

#198 BigJim

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,797 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 08

Posted Yesterday, 12:20 PM

You could end up with California's new ammo laws requiring a paid background check with every ammo purchase and all purchases have to go thru ffl effective 7/1.

Thank God for Wisconsin!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Big Jim
-----------------------------------------
I will not be commanded,
I will not be controlled
And I will not let my future go on,
without the help of my soul

The Lost Boy - Greg Holden




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users