
People vs Aguilar
#31
Posted 09 September 2013 - 03:06 PM
#32
Posted 09 September 2013 - 03:40 PM

IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor
Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor
#33
Posted 09 September 2013 - 03:45 PM
#34
Posted 09 September 2013 - 09:38 PM
IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor
Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor
#35
Posted 10 September 2013 - 06:34 AM
#36
Posted 10 September 2013 - 06:39 AM
#37
Posted 10 September 2013 - 08:08 AM
I think it is a full time job, for Todd.Wow, another interesting case. Trying to keep up with all this is almost a full time job.
I can tell you for sure since I found this site my productivity has really suffered. I think I need to find a way to "parental control" it from myself if only for 6 hours a day so I can get some work done.
Patiently awaiting the "opinion" from the SCOIL.
-Thomas
Member, ISRA; Life Member, NRA; NRA Certified Instructor, AGI Certified Gunsmith, Illinois Concealed Carry Instructor
www.alphakoncepts.com www.gunrights4illinois.com @AlphaKoncepts
#38
Posted 10 September 2013 - 10:52 AM
#39
Posted 10 September 2013 - 10:55 AM
I think it is a full time job, for Todd.Wow, another interesting case. Trying to keep up with all this is almost a full time job.
I can tell you for sure since I found this site my productivity has really suffered. I think I need to find a way to "parental control" it from myself if only for 6 hours a day so I can get some work done.
Patiently awaiting the "opinion" from the SCOIL.
I could not agree more with the drop in productivity! But, that is why I have employees, right?
Now, I was looking at SCOIL, and thought it to be funny that it means, in Irish:
- Leisure time given to learning.
- A school; a place for learning or instruction.
- A student body; the disciples of a teacher.
- A sect; body of followers of a teacher or system, such as the Praetorian guard.
- An art gallery.
Sorry for my rant.. Thought it too funny..
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
SAF Member
FFL 03 - C&R License Holder
#40
Posted 12 September 2013 - 08:20 AM
Edit with more info:
In People v. Aguilar, the Illinois Supreme Court held that there is a 2A right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense (essentially agreeing with the 7th Circuit's opinion in Moore) and therefore found that AUUW was unconstitutional and reversed Aguilar's conviction. However, the Illinois Supreme Court found that it is constitutional to ban minors from possessing firearms and upheld Aguilar's conviction under the minor in possession of a firearm statute.
In Coram v. The State of Illinois, the plaintiff was previously convicted of misdemeanour domestic battery, and therefore, was barred by federal law from possessing a firearm. The plaintiff sued in state court seeking to force ISP to issue him a FOID based on the argument that the federal ban was unconstitutional. The downstate judge ruled in plaintiff's favor finding that the federal ban was unconstitutional and ordering ISP to issue the plaintiff a FOID. ISP appealed and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order forcing the ISP to give a FOID to the plaintiff, but the supreme court also found that it was unnecessary for the trial court to reach the constitutional question so the supreme court overruled that part of the judge's order that found the federal ban unconstitutional. The take away from this case is that a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanour domestic battery charge has the opportunity to convince a judge that they are not a danger and should be entitled to regain their right to possess a firearm. If the judge is persuaded, the judge can revest the plaintiff with the right to possess a firearm and order the ISP to issue a FOID card.
Edited by Phatty, 12 September 2013 - 08:32 AM.
#41
Posted 12 September 2013 - 08:29 AM
--George OrwellPeople sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.
#42
Posted 12 September 2013 - 08:37 AM
It may not have been a 100% win, but it is still a huge victory, especially considering the venue (Illinois Supreme Court).Looks like the court has agreed with Moore that AUUW is unconstitutional, but upheld unlawful possession of a firearm by a minor charges. This isn't the win we hoped for.
#43
Posted 12 September 2013 - 08:45 AM
A state supreme court finds the right to keep and bear arms goes beyond the home. Stick. It brady, bunch, bloomberg et al
And our process for restoring rights in constitutional. And the anti gunners plan no to fund it just failed
Todd
#44
Posted 12 September 2013 - 08:53 AM
Farmer - the thing on minors isn't so bad, the ruling just says specifically that it falls outside the scope of the 2nd amendment, it could be a 14th amendment issue though maybe.
In other words, the IL law that defines what a minor is, is to be considered a separate issue from 2nd amendment rights, thus they didn't find it relevant to the limitations the 2nd amendment puts on government wrt/ right to bear arms...
Edited by BrowningHP, 12 September 2013 - 08:54 AM.
#45
Posted 12 September 2013 - 08:55 AM
+1Guys these are big wins.
A state supreme cour finds the right to keep and bear arms goes beyond the home. Stick. It brady, bunch, bloomberg et al
And our process for restoring rights in consitutional. And the anti gunners plan no to fund it just failed
Todd
#46
Posted 12 September 2013 - 08:57 AM
#47
Posted 12 September 2013 - 09:06 AM
Under federal law, if a state has restored the civil rights of a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, then that person is no longer banned by federal law from possessing firearms. So the state judge's order should be treated under federal law as a restoration of the person's civil rights, and the federal ban would no longer apply to that person.So lets say a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence gets a FOID. Wouldn't he or she still be in violation of federal law? What about FFLs and the 4473 forms? Wouldn't the individual have to write down that they were convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence?
#48
Posted 12 September 2013 - 09:12 AM
NRA Endowment Member
ISRA Member
GOA Member
Buy my stuff!
My favorite post ----- Walmart Thread ----- Ammo Alert Thread ---- Daily Deals Thread
#49
Posted 12 September 2013 - 09:15 AM
So is that 2 rulings that IL UUW is unconstitutional?
Yes, but the court pointed out in a footnote that the UUW statue was amended by the FCCA and that neither the FCCA or the amended UUW law was at question, just the prior UUW under which the defendant was convicted.
Also, while the court ruled that the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to the defendant due to his age, he was only 17 at the time of conviction so it shouldn't effect the court case involving an 18 year old suing the state over the foid provisions of requiring a parental signature for those under 21.
#50
Posted 12 September 2013 - 09:15 AM
http://www.thetrutha...me/#more-256063
and more at Volokh:
http://www.volokh.com/category/guns/
Edited by ming, 12 September 2013 - 09:41 AM.
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Pistol and PPITH Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
ISRA Member
Registered Illinois Concealed Carry Firearms Instructor
#51
Posted 12 September 2013 - 09:16 AM
yes and that the 7ths decision is now the precedent in illinois courts.So is that 2 rulings that IL UUW is unconstitutional?
#52
Posted 12 September 2013 - 09:25 AM
yes and that the 7ths decision is now the precedent in illinois courts.So is that 2 rulings that IL UUW is unconstitutional?
So does that mean we can start carrying today?
#53
Posted 12 September 2013 - 09:26 AM
That's what I was saying.....yes and that the 7ths decision is now the precedent in illinois courts.So is that 2 rulings that IL UUW is unconstitutional?
So does that mean we can start carrying today?
Edited by TyGuy, 12 September 2013 - 09:28 AM.
NRA Endowment Member
ISRA Member
GOA Member
Buy my stuff!
My favorite post ----- Walmart Thread ----- Ammo Alert Thread ---- Daily Deals Thread
#54
Posted 12 September 2013 - 09:45 AM
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4
#55
Posted 12 September 2013 - 09:46 AM
And that's the million dollar question. The Illinois Supreme Court only held that the law pre-FCCA was unconstitutional. They could very well hold that the law is no longer unconstitutional after FCCA was enacted. More specifically, after FCCA was enacted but before anyone can actually get a license, is the law still unconstitutional? This is the same question that the 7th Circuit is currently considering.That's what I was saying.....So does that mean we can start carrying today?
#56
Posted 12 September 2013 - 09:49 AM
After reviewing these two lines of authority—the Illinois cases
holding that section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) is constitutional, and the
Seventh Circuit’s decision holding that it is not—we are convinced
that the Seventh Circuit’s analysis is the correct one. As the Seventh
Circuit correctly noted, neither Heller nor McDonald expressly limits
the second amendment’s protections to the home. On the contrary,
both decisions contain language strongly suggesting if not outright
confirming that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms
extends beyond the home. Moreover, if Heller means what it says,
and “individual self-defense” is indeed “the central component” of
the second amendment right to keep and bear arms (Heller, 554 U.S.
at 599), then it would make little sense to restrict that right to the
home, as “[c]onfrontations are not limited to the home.” Moore, 702
F.3d at 935-36.
Of course, in concluding that the second amendment protects the
right to possess and use a firearm for self-defense outside the home,
we are in no way saying that such a right is unlimited or is not subject
to meaningful regulation. See infra ¶¶ 26-27. That said, we cannot
escape the reality that, in this case, we are dealing not with a
reasonable regulation but with a comprehensive ban. Again, in the
form presently before us, section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) categorically
prohibits the possession and use of an operable firearm for self defense
outside the home. In other words, section 24-1.6(a)(1),
(a)(3)(A) amounts to a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a
personal right that is specifically named in and guaranteed by the
United States Constitution, as construed by the United States
Supreme Court. In no other context would we permit this, and we will
not permit it here either.
Despite their rallying around us at election time, honoring only 8 hours of Illinois' 40+ hour law enforcement class towards a 16 hour requirement shows the contempt that our elected officials hold us in.
#57
Posted 12 September 2013 - 09:52 AM
No you can't carry today. See the foot note about how the opinion doesn't address the FCCA?
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4
I saw that. However, since the UUW law wasn't really amended, just an exception added, and the court has ruled that the UUW law is unconstitutional (I noticed there was no stay like the 7th issued)....



Using logic, how can you have an exception to a law that is no longer in existence? ie, it was struck down as unconstitutional.
#58
Posted 12 September 2013 - 09:57 AM
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4
#59
Posted 12 September 2013 - 10:00 AM
It's also huge for everyone in the state that is currently being prosecuted for an AUUW charge that was pre-FCCA. They've all just been given a get-out-of-jail-free card.The exception - - FCCA - - means that there isn't a total ban on carrying outside the home. All this case does is give us a state law precedent that 2A exists outside the home, which is huge for future cases.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4
Edit: It also shows why many state's attorneys that refused to prosecute anyone for UUW charges after the Moore decision came down were very wise not to waste resources on those cases.
Edited by Phatty, 12 September 2013 - 10:02 AM.
#60
Posted 12 September 2013 - 10:02 AM
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users