38 replies to this topic

[Molly B.]

Judge Dunn, circuit judge in Wabash County has ruled in favor of our plaintiff in Johnson vs ISP.  This case challenges the lifetime ban on firearm possession for individuals prohibited for misdemeanor domestic battery convictions under the federal Lautenberg Act.  It is similar to the Corum case which won in IL Supreme Court a few years ago but a new challenge was needed after IL changed IL law right after the Corum ruling.

 

The Judge Dunn's ruling is attached. If appealed this case will advance to the IL Supreme Court because of the constitutional challenge. (This copy is not signed but will be once we get a copy of the ruling filed with the clerk.)

 

 ORDER Regarding Second Amendment As Applied Challenge (Shawna Johnson v. ISP, Wabash CO. No. 2013-MR-15)(FINAL DRAFT - SEPT 29 2018 at 11 PM).pdf   379.95KB   683 downloads

[pro2a]

Her “as applied” challenge is not only “ripe,” but, this court holds, it should bear
fruit as her request to have her FOID Card reinstated must be granted.

[speedbump]

Good for Shawna! It looks like she had half the L.E. in Wabash County speak in her favor.

[Flynn]

Any updates on if this was actually appealed to the IL Supreme Court or any status updates at all?

[pro2a]

This was appealed to Illinois supreme court. We are in the early stages hoping for a ruling by fall.

[Flynn]

This was appealed to Illinois supreme court. We are in the early stages hoping for a ruling by fall.

 

Thank you much for the update.

[Molly B.]

Oral arguments have been scheduled for Tuesday, Nov. 19th.

[pro2a]

You're quick Mollyb! She was getting ready to text you!

[Molly B.]

Arguments to begin shortly!

[RacerDave6]

I see there's a good 2A lawyer up there today.

[speedbump]

Go, Shawna!

[THE KING]

Can someone let us know what is going on.

[Molly B.]

https://multimedia.i...1919_124213.mp4

Video of oral arguments more posted.

[Molly B.]

After six long years in the court system - IL Supreme Court rules in favor of Shawna Johnson!!  7-0

 

 

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that, under section 10 of the FOID Card Act, granting Johnson relief would not be contrary to federal law. 430 ILCS 65/10©(4) (West 2012). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court directing the issuance of a FOID card to Johnson. Based on our holding, there is no need to address the constitutional basis for the trial court’s ruling. Accordingly, we vacate the circuit court’s holding that section 922(g)(9) and the provisions of the FOID Card Act (id. §§ 8(n), 10( , 10©(4)), along with the relevant provisions of the Illinois Administrative Code, are unconstitutional as applied to Johnson.
¶ 52
Affirmed in part and vacated in part.

 

 

 

 

 IL Supreme Court ruling Johnson v ISP.pdf   81.72KB   364 downloads

[Molly B.]

Page 9, para 30 - this is a huge step for IL Supreme Court:  We find that (1) the right to keep and bear arms is a “civil right,” (2) Illinois has a regulatory mechanism to restore those rights through an individualized determination, and (3) relief granted under section 10 of the FOID Card Act constitutes a sufficient restoration of civil rights as intended by section 921(a)(33)( b(ii).

 

This could affect many, many denials based on "issuing a FOID card would be contrary to federal law".

[steveTA84]

I see this as the groundwork to start possibly flooding the ISP with lawsuits

[pro2a]

Long time coming indeed! This is what can happen when people step up and fight for their rights!

[Molly B.]

I see this as the groundwork to start possibly flooding the ISP with lawsuits

It is definitely groundwork for petitioning courts for FOID cards that have been denied or revoked and CCLs that have been denied because of decades old cases turning up in background checks.

[Penumbra1811]

This is great I believe it's going to help many people especially me when I go to court next month.

[cybermgk]

Page 9, para 30 - this is a huge step for IL Supreme Court:  We find that (1) the right to keep and bear arms is a “civil right,” (2) Illinois has a regulatory mechanism to restore those rights through an individualized determination, and (3) relief granted under section 10 of the FOID Card Act constitutes a sufficient restoration of civil rights as intended by section 921(a)(33)( b(ii).

 

This could affect many, many denials based on "issuing a FOID card would be contrary to federal law".

Yes, but civil rights, as opposed to inalienable rights, can be restricted via code and law.  Not sure, I like that finding

[chislinger]

Yes, but civil rights, as opposed to inalienable rights, can be restricted via code and law.  Not sure, I like that finding

They are the same. Life is an inalienable right, but under law you can be executed for certain crimes.

[Patriots & Tyrants]

Wonder if the state appeals to the SCOTUS 

[Flynn]

Molly as I have said in the past I know someone with a near identical situation (charged domestic & plead simple and lost rights) that has been waiting for this case to resolve so they could hopefully restore their rights as well, how would they proceed now that this ruling has come down?

 

I'm guessing just re-apply for FOID first and see what happens?

[Molly B.]

I would suggest waiting just a bit, the state has 34 days to decide if they want to appeal. In the meantime, have them check their status on the ISP website. If it says revoked or denied, they cannot reapply, they would need to appeal in the circuit court in the county where they live.  I am going to assume they would need the same notarized statements required by other people who have to appeal in court.  We might be able to find a template for the petition they would need to file with the court.

[John Q Public]

If?

[Molly B.]

I don't think they will appeal based on the fact of the unanimous ruling.  They would have little expectation of winning in a higher court that is favorably balanced to our side.  I could be wrong but that's my opinion.

[speedbump]

I don't think they will appeal based on the fact of the unanimous ruling.  They would have little expectation of winning in a higher court that is favorably balanced to our side.  I could be wrong but that's my opinion.

Agreed. And it is stunning to behold.

[ChicagoRonin70]

Figuratively, the ISP has been taken out to the woods, made to duckwalk without pants, while the plaintiff walked behind them wearing wingtip shoes and imitating an NFL kicker booting a 65-yard field goal.

 

That would be the objective, scientific description of how to characterize this win.

[speedbump]

Figuratively, the ISP has been taken out to the woods, made to duckwalk without pants, while the plaintiff walked behind them wearing wingtip shoes and imitating an NFL kicker booting a 65-yard field goal.
 
That would be the objective, scientific description of how to characterize this win.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[mab22]

Was there an organization behind this or did she do it herself?