Jump to content

Rodgers v Hacker


Craigcr2

Recommended Posts

..."That Defendant Gregory Hacker (“Hacker”) is the Chief of the Illinois State Police Firearms Services Bureau, and is responsible for the processing of FOID card applications and the issuance of FOID cards."...

 

This one is a new name for me.

 

Illinois State Police - 4 years 2 months

 

Lieutenant / Acting Commander Firearms Services Bureau - Jan 2020 - Present 10 months

 

Master Sergeant / Office of Labor Relations and Special Projects - Oct 2017 - Jan 2020 2 years 4 months

 

Master Sergeant / Mansion Detail Leader / Executive Protection Unit - Sep 2016 - Sep 2017 1 year 1 month

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one was filed in the SDIL last week. Hes basically going after everything with counts challenging FOID processing, fees for FOID/CCL, melting point, and transfers taking longer than 72 hours.

 

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.86072/gov.uscourts.ilsd.86072.1.0.pdf

 

A case like this is ripe to be run all the way up to the Supreme Court, imagine the field day the Supreme Court could have with all those infringing claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That is good news. Do you think courts may try to punt, as not have to rule on a second amendment case?

On some counts, but it’s written well enough that the 2A is unavoidable on some. My biggest concern is a challenge to Rodgers’ standing.

 

 

IMO they may be able to challenge the not getting a FOID, by simply issuing it before court and the entire "I might get arrrested claim" but I don't see how they could dismiss their standing on anything else as it all revolves around deprivation of their rights. What Illinois courts will likely do it apply the horribly low standard to allow infringments of the 2nd, something that is ripe for appeal all the way up to the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That is good news. Do you think courts may try to punt, as not have to rule on a second amendment case?

 

On some counts, but it’s written well enough that the 2A is unavoidable on some. My biggest concern is a challenge to Rodgers’ standing.

IMO they may be able to challenge the not getting a FOID, by simply issuing it before court and the entire "I might get arrrested claim" but I don't see how they could dismiss their standing on anything else as it all revolves around deprivation of their rights. What Illinois courts will likely do it apply the horribly low standard to allow infringments of the 2nd, something that is ripe for appeal all the way up to the top.

Standing is hard for a claim when the injury is anticipated. A good example is the melting point challenge. He wants to buy a zinc gun at some point in the future but won’t be able to. The court is going to look at this differently than they would if he already ordered a zinc gun, but his FFL couldn’t transfer it; then there’s an actual injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would anticipate that this case will be significantly narrowed based on standing, and delays notwithstanding, some elements will be mooted by eventual issuance of a FOID card to the individual. We have seen similar machinations with people under 21 applying for FOID cards. However, the count regarding the fees for the FOID cards could well be a very interesting one. Rulings on this count could affect the existence of the FOID fee, future lawsuits by others regarding their own fees, and even the existence of the FOID.

 

Would a ruling on the Foid Fee permit other cases requesting fees and attorneys fees under Section 1983?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...