407 replies to this topic

[Molly B.]

This is a case in my own circuit court that we have been monitoring for the past year. The court ruled the FOID Act unconstitutional in regards to the licensing and taxing requirement to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition in your own home. The IL Attorney General has appealed the case to the IL Supreme Court.

 

Cliff notes: Lady with a clean record, in possession of a single shot, bolt action rifle .22 in the home for personal protection. No FOID but otherwise eligible for a FOID.  Judge ruled requiring a license and charging a fee/tax  to exercise a Constitutional right in the home unconstitutional.

 

David Sigale with the Second Amendment Foundation will be representing Ms. Brown in her appeal to the IL Supreme Court appeal.

 

 

 Brown 2017CM60-ORDER-2_14_2018.pdf   64.36KB   5233 downloads

 

 

 Brown 2017CM60-ORDER-10_16_2018.pdf   64.15KB   4001 downloads

 

 

 

Brown Legal Fund $225.00

Edited by Molly B., 15 April 2019 - 04:31 PM.

[JoeM]

Nice

[Sweeper13]

Very nice.

[THE KING]

Very nice. My only concern is the language "in the home".

Is that written in the courts written opinion.

I would be happy to see it as unconstitutional period.

[Bird76Mojo]

With that judges opinion, Illinois is doubling down on fees/taxes outside the home by requiring both a FOID AND a CCL.. Very interesting.

Edited by Bird76Mojo, 21 March 2019 - 11:13 AM.

[357]

That means FOID and all licenses and fees are Unconstitutional.

[Molly B.]

Very nice. My only concern is the language "in the home".

Is that written in the courts written opinion.

I would be happy to see it as unconstitutional period.

 

 

We would be too but remember, McDonald vs Chicago had to remove the ban in in the home before we could get rid of the ban outside the home.

[2smartby1/2]

Well done...

[mrmagloo]

Wow, just wow.  Excellent news!

[bmyers]

Wow, this is some of the best news I have heard lately.

[Vodoun da Vinci]

Kudos to all for keeping this ball rolling.....and thank you. 

 

VooDoo

[THE KING]

Very nice. My only concern is the language "in the home".
Is that written in the courts written opinion.
I would be happy to see it as unconstitutional period.

 
 
We would be too but remember, McDonald vs Chicago had to remove the ban in in the home before we could get rid of the ban outside the home.

I hope that is the direction we go. I would like to see the FOID card to be considered "Facially Unconstitutional" same as the Webb case was ruled on today.

That ruling is AWESOME.

Edited by THE KING, 21 March 2019 - 11:39 AM.

[Davey]

This is yuge.

[Davey]

Why are those docs dates from 2018?

[FieldGL]

Why are those docs dates from 2018?

 

I just noticed that. 

 

Either way, good news. Hope we can continue the progress. 

[mauserme]

Why are those docs dates from 2018?

As Molly B said, it's been on the radar for a year.

[Davey]

Why are those docs dates from 2018?

As Molly B said, it's been on the radar for a year.

Why is she posting about it now?

[mauserme]

Why is she posting about it now?

Because of the appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.

[Jeffrey]

Great news.  What other Constitutionally protected right do you have to pass a test and pay for?

[springfield shooter]

 

Very nice. My only concern is the language "in the home".

Is that written in the courts written opinion.

I would be happy to see it as unconstitutional period.

 

 

We would be too but remember, McDonald vs Chicago had to remove the ban in in the home before we could get rid of the ban outside the home.

 

 

Common sense (I know...I know...) dictates that one would have to be able to transport the firearm and ammunition TO the home. If it's legal IN the home without a license, it has to be legal getting it TO the home without a license.

[THE KING]

Very nice. My only concern is the language "in the home".
Is that written in the courts written opinion.
I would be happy to see it as unconstitutional period.

 
 
We would be too but remember, McDonald vs Chicago had to remove the ban in in the home before we could get rid of the ban outside the home.

 
Common sense (I know...I know...) dictates that one would have to be able to transport the firearm and ammunition TO the home. If it's legal IN the home without a license, it has to be legal getting it TO the home without a license.

I like the way you think. I haven't thought about it from that perspective, if you look at it from a much broader perspective based on all the FOID requirements maybe the whole FOID card issue can be found unconstitutional. I like it.

[Bubbacs]

Not direct on topic guys n gals!

Be sure to become a supporting member here at IC
MollyB, Mauserme and others need all our help they can get.
Lawyers cost, time costs.
The two posts today by MollyB show that we are or can be moving in the correct direction.

11,000 members here, let’s give a hand!

[Molly B.]

 

 

Why are those docs dates from 2018?

As Molly B said, it's been on the radar for a year.

Why is she posting about it now?
 

 
 
Because there were motions to reconsider, waiting for the court to rule on motions to reconsider, etc.  The case could have died on the vine, so to speak. It's only in the appeal process or decisions not to appeal that we make or end progress in a case.  By the judge denying motions to dismiss, the case grew legs and now it is on the way to the IL Supreme Court.

[RS1]

This is good news. Great work!

If $10 for a FOID is an onerous tax, what about the $25/firearm and $0.05/round in Cook County?


Also, does the fact that it was a single shot bolt action .22 matter in this decision? Seems like the perfect case.

[DomG]

$But what about the children?$

[tricolor]

Seems like a wonderful fact pattern to push!  Great news.

[Kosta]

Very good news

[Flynn]

Constitutional protected rights don't end at your doorway threshold, so if even if the wording of a final ruling is narrow it should be easy to expand upon.  And even in the interm a ruling that no FOID is needed to own/possses guns in your residence is a HUGE step forward in this state.

Edited by Flynn, 21 March 2019 - 12:58 PM.

[2smartby1/2]

 

 

Very nice. My only concern is the language "in the home".

Is that written in the courts written opinion.

I would be happy to see it as unconstitutional period.

 

 

We would be too but remember, McDonald vs Chicago had to remove the ban in in the home before we could get rid of the ban outside the home.

 

 

Common sense (I know...I know...) dictates that one would have to be able to transport the firearm and ammunition TO the home. If it's legal IN the home without a license, it has to be legal getting it TO the home without a license.

 

Good point!   Unless, they come back and say something silly like.....it only applies to weapons and ammo created within the home...    

[jagt48]

[quote name="2smartby1/2" post="1203614" timestamp="1553196005"][quote name="springfield shooter" post="1203578" timestamp="1553192232"]
[quote name="Molly B." post="1203543" timestamp="1553188969"]
[quote name="THE KING" post="1203535" timestamp="1553187790"]
Very nice. My only concern is the language "in the home".
Is that written in the courts written opinion.
I would be happy to see it as unconstitutional period.
[/quote]
 
 
We would be too but remember, McDonald vs Chicago had to remove the ban in in the home before we could get rid of the ban outside the home.
[/quote]
 
Common sense (I know...I know...) dictates that one would have to be able to transport the firearm and ammunition TO the home. If it's legal IN the home without a license, it has to be legal getting it TO the home without a license.
[/quote]
Good point!   Unless, they come back and say something silly like.....it only applies to weapons and ammo created within the home...
[/quote]

Check and check...