Jump to content


Photo

(Evans Jr)/Sigale Files in Illinois Supreme Court to Reinforce FOID Relief Statute


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,623 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 12 June 2020 - 12:52 AM

Didnt see this listed elsewhere

Sigale Files in Illinois Supreme Court to Reinforce FOID Relief Statute

https://sigalelaw.co...relief-statute/

...A few months back, an Illinois Appellate Court ruled that those who sought relief for their denied or revoked FOID cards could never get such relief because of the way the law was written. So Alfred Evans, Jr., a man with a checkered youth but now a fine family man and business owner, could not get his FOID application denial reversed, even as the Appellate Court said it would do so if the law were not written in such a way that its hands were tied. David Sigale, with co-counsel Bryant Chavez, is litigating Mr. Evans case in the Illinois Supreme Court to get this wrongful interpretation of Illinois law reversed (See below), so that Mr. Evans and other deserving individuals like him can fully enjoy their Second Amendment rights...

https://sigalelaw.co...endix-POS-1.pdf

Edited by InterestedBystander, 12 June 2020 - 12:53 AM.

NRA Life Member; ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
SAF Member; GOA Member
🇺🇸

#2 bmyers

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,294 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 12 June 2020 - 05:16 AM

I wish him luck. I'm glad he is challenging the law. People make mistakes, especially in their younger days. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for the crime because they are young, yet once the punishment is paid and the person has proven that he/she can make the right choices, then consideration should be given to restoring the rights.


Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA

ISRA Member


#3 Benbow

  • Members
  • 43 posts
  • Joined: 30-October 19

Posted 14 June 2020 - 09:11 PM

While the appellate court got it wrong, the fact of the matter is his lawyer missed the most obvious thing in the world.  Other than machineguns, federal law does not prohibit ANYONE from possessing firearms, only firearms that have moved in or affected interstate commerce.  Domestic Illinois made firearms that have not crossed a state line can be possessed, at least under federal law, by felons and crazy people in Illinois.  Thus, the section at issue, is actually meaningless.  His lawyer should have known that.



#4 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,585 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted 15 June 2020 - 07:27 AM

While the appellate court got it wrong, the fact of the matter is his lawyer missed the most obvious thing in the world.  Other than machineguns, federal law does not prohibit ANYONE from possessing firearms, only firearms that have moved in or affected interstate commerce.  Domestic Illinois made firearms that have not crossed a state line can be possessed, at least under federal law, by felons and crazy people in Illinois.  Thus, the section at issue, is actually meaningless.  His lawyer should have known that.

Technically the Federal government can only regulate interstate commerce in machine guns as well, however the courts have affirmed that intra-state commerce in firearms can have an effect on the market nationally, thus federal law can regulate that as well

 

The panel then held that the complaint failed to state a claim in light of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), and United States v. Stewart, 451 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2006), and that Congress could rationally conclude that unlicensed firearms made in Montana would make their way into the interstate market. The panel held that the MFFA was necessarily preempted and invalid.

 

http://cdn.ca9.uscou...23/10-36094.pdf


"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly,
flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to
intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."
-Chicago Times review of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users