Jump to content

Standing question


mab22

Recommended Posts

I thought there was a post some where on Illinois carry site that either "public interest" or "Public good" was given by an Illinois appellate court as grounds for standing.

If anyone is familiar with an Illinois court ruling with regards to this or knows the post or case I would appreciate it. Maybe federal district?

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought there was a post some where on Illinois carry site that either "public interest" or "Public good" was given by an Illinois appellate court as grounds for standing.

If anyone is familiar with an Illinois court ruling with regards to this or knows the post or case I would appreciate it. Maybe federal district?

 

Thank you.

 

Are you asking about the right to "stand your ground" in defensive situations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I thought there was a post some where on Illinois carry site that either "public interest" or "Public good" was given by an Illinois appellate court as grounds for standing.

If anyone is familiar with an Illinois court ruling with regards to this or knows the post or case I would appreciate it. Maybe federal district?

 

Thank you.

Are you asking about the right to "stand your ground" in defensive situations?

 

Legal standing, which is required to pursue a lawsuit. It's a complicated subject and not one I understand well at all.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US doesn't have public interest standing as some other countries do. However, organizations can represent their members, and in some instances, someone can represent the rights of others if they have been injured -- this is often allowed if the other injured parties would not be able to seek redress themselves.

 

For example, an 18 y/o denied an FOID for lack of a parents signature might have their case languish for 3 years such that they turn 21 and could get an FOID without a parent's signature. The court, recognizing that the next 18 y/o would also have their case languish for years, may allow the case to continue even if the standing question becomes murky due to the plaintiff turning 21. Horsley v. Trame was nearly in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See Koshinski v. Trame on the "public importance exception" to the standing requirement. It involves ex parte proceedings. Several terms for it, one meaning: the importance of the issue, the likeliness it'll occur again, and again, and again, outweighs mootness. Balancing.

 

Link to post in Judicial:

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=65494

 

Fifth District Appellate Court decision:

http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/OPINIONS/AppellateCourt/2017/5thDistrict/5150398.pdf

 

"The plaintiff, David Koshinski, filed an action challenging the constitutionality of two firearm licensing statutes, section 8.2 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (FOID Card Act) (430 ILCS 65/8.2 (West 2014)), and section 70(B) of the Firearm Concealed Carry Act (430 ILCS 66/70(B) (West 2014)), which temporarily revoked, without giving him notice or an opportunity to be heard, his right to possess firearms as a result of an emergency order of protection entered against him. Because the defendant, Jessica Trame, in her official capacity as chief of the Firearms Services Bureau of the Department of State Police, had restored the plaintiff’s right to possess firearms prior to the hearing on his action, the circuit court dismissed the plaintiff’s action as moot. For the, following reasons, we reverse the circuit court’s dismissal order, and we remand the cause for further proceedings."

 

"Further, the role of the defendant, as chief of the Firearms Services Bureau, in executing the provisions of the firearm suspension statutes is a recurring question. See People ex rel. Department of Corrections v. Fort, 352 Ill. App. 3d 309, 314 (2004) (issue regarding propriety of force to monitor and/or force feed inmate on hunger strike, was properly reviewed under public interest exception to mootness doctrine because whether an inmate may starve to death while under the care of the Department of Corrections was a matter of public importance and the role of the Department in these situations was a recurring question); see also People ex rel. Department of Corrections v. Millard, 335 Ill. App. 3d 1066, 1070 (2003) (same). Thus, this question is likely to, recur. Because this case meets the requirements of the public interest exception to the mootness, doctrine, we find that the circuit court improperly dismissed it as moot."

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

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...