Jump to content


Photo

People v. Brown - FOID ruled unconstituional in IL District Court


  • Please log in to reply
291 replies to this topic

#61 357

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,825 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 22 March 2019 - 06:30 PM

Molly, is there any need to start a GoFundMe to help in this effort?  I'm sure there a lot of people here who would be willing to kick in a few bucks - myself included


Rather than a go fund me, we would rather see donations to IllinoisCarry marked Brown case.

I sent $50 through PayPal marked Brown case.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#62 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,928 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 22 March 2019 - 07:04 PM

FYI (you know who you are. Thank you for the suggestion)BZ34vCz.jpg


This interests me greatly. So many different stories and so much that makes no sense, I hope they respond and not deny the request.
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
SAF Member
GOA Member
🇺🇸

#63 Markeb2800

  • Members
  • 11 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 19

Posted 23 March 2019 - 05:05 AM

Sadly, here in Illinois our only hope is the courts. It shouldn't be this way in America.

#64 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,102 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 23 March 2019 - 08:06 AM

Ran the two orders through Acrobat OCR. Posting the searchable PDFs. First is the 10/16 order, second is the 2/14 order.

 

Attached File  Brown 2017CM60-ORDER-10_16_2018-OCR.pdf   62.1KB   264 downloads

 

Attached File  Brown 2017CM60-ORDER-2_14_2018-OCR.pdf   63.74KB   273 downloads


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#65 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,467 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 24 March 2019 - 04:47 PM

Out of curiosity, do we know what happened that got her charged?

 

Someone accused her of firing the gun in the air, witnesses testified she did not, there was no evidence the gun had been fired.


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#66 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 24 March 2019 - 09:31 PM

Looks like the appealte defender's office is handling the case. 


While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.
 
my posts are moderated due to some butthurt on the part of IC people not liking my comments at times

#67 gtr2009

  • Members
  • 31 posts
  • Joined: 27-September 13

Posted 25 March 2019 - 12:33 AM

The 10-16 order is funny.  I don't know why the court expanded its argument from the 2-14 ruling since I can't see the responses filed after 2-14 but it's funny.

 

The court says the law is unconstitutional because it states you must have the FOID "on your person" if in "constructive possession", and since you are in constructive possession at all times while at home the law means you could never not be carrying your FOID on your person while in the house.  

 

Ie, the law is unconstitutional because you'd have to shower with your FOID to comply. LOL


Edited by gtr2009, 25 March 2019 - 12:34 AM.


#68 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,075 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 25 March 2019 - 05:50 AM

The 10-16 order is funny.  I don't know why the court expanded its argument from the 2-14 ruling since I can't see the responses filed after 2-14 but it's funny.
 
The court says the law is unconstitutional because it states you must have the FOID "on your person" if in "constructive possession", and since you are in constructive possession at all times while at home the law means you could never not be carrying your FOID on your person while in the house.  
 
Ie, the law is unconstitutional because you'd have to shower with your FOID to comply. LOL


Wouldn’t you be in ‘constructive possession’ of your FOID card if it was anywhere in the house.


^ this ***

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#69 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,467 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 25 March 2019 - 07:11 AM

Looks like the appealte defender's office is handling the case.


That was the situation when we found out her attorney is retiring. That has changed.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#70 Huski92

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 150 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 11

Posted 25 March 2019 - 07:37 AM

That’s good news. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#71 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 13,786 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 25 March 2019 - 08:26 AM

Now here is a first. Second City Cop Blog is now quoting us:

FOID Card "Unconstitutional!
This is going to the Illinois Supreme Court, and probably the US Supreme Court. From the Illinois Carry website:
This is a case in my own circuit court that we have been monitoring for the past year. The court ruled the FOID Act unconstitutional in regards to the licensing and taxing requirement to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition in your own home. The IL Attorney General has appealed the case to the IL Supreme Court.

Cliff notes: Lady with a clean record, in possession of a single shot, bolt action rifle .22 in the home for personal protection. No FOID but otherwise eligible for a FOID. Judge ruled requiring a license and charging a fee/tax to exercise a Constitutional right in the home unconstitutional.

We were in contact with the attorney for this case and discovered he was retiring and will not be representing Ms. Brown at the IL Supreme Court level. We have sought legal representation for Ms. Brown and believe the case will be in good hands. More news to follow!
Sounds like a bunch more taxpayer money to be wasted courtesy of the democrats coming up soon!
Labels: gun issues

POSTED BY SCC AT 12:01 AM 11 COMMENTS

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#72 FF1984

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Joined: 27-October 13

Posted 25 March 2019 - 08:57 AM

Cliff notes: Lady with a clean record, in possession of a single shot, bolt action rifle .22 in the home for personal protection. No FOID but otherwise eligible for a FOID. Judge ruled requiring a license and charging a fee/tax to exercise a Constitutional right in the home unconstitutional.

 

I know we are all well aware of how BS this system is but when they spell it out like above, it makes me wonder how it's been allowed to stand for so long.  



#73 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,809 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 25 March 2019 - 11:22 AM

We didn't have Heller and McDonald. You're all living in a post Heller world when Mortong Grove's handgun ban was found to be constitutional
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.
 
my posts are moderated due to some butthurt on the part of IC people not liking my comments at times

#74 Badger52

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 19

Posted 25 March 2019 - 07:35 PM

Literally just came by to wish you all,well, perhaps not the best of luck but the best of timing in terms of the next court(s) the case gets heard in.  I have close friends in IL, so just wanted to tack on some well-wishing.  It occurs to me that, post-Heller or not, it is sad that no one in a court seems to have embraced the 2nd Amendment in the way that Murdock v. Pennsylvania embraced the First, e.g., "No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore." and the doctrine of "freedom of press, freedom of speech, [and] freedom of religion are in a preferred position", indicating that certain fundamental human rights have prerogative.  Would that more jurists took that approach with the 2nd.

 

Fair winds & following seas in your journey.



#75 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,155 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 25 March 2019 - 11:04 PM

So, if the FOID requirement is unconstitutional to Brown, what about ". . . nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

How can it be unconstitutional just to one person and NOT by definition violate the Equal Protection Clause?

 

Fourteenth Amendment? Fourteenth Amendment? If it applies to Brown v. Board of Education and also applies to everyone, than how can this Brown v. not ALSO apply to everyone?


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#76 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,102 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 26 March 2019 - 06:03 AM

How can it be unconstitutional just to one person and NOT by definition violate the Equal Protection Clause?
Was asking the same question. Why as applied rather than facial? Think of it from the perspective of a defense lawyer. Job is to get YOUR client acquitted. Not help millions of fellow residents. Her counsel was apparently OSAD (Office of State Appellate Defender) and likely plead it as applied because he was throwing wet noodles against a wall. Just so happens that one stuck. He wasn't thinking BIG picture. Just "give my client her right to counsel." That being said, if it's unconstitutional as applied in this case, it's unconstitutional on its face because the same onerous BS is placed on everyone who wishes to own a firearm for lawful purposes. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#77 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,155 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 26 March 2019 - 11:43 AM

 

How can it be unconstitutional just to one person and NOT by definition violate the Equal Protection Clause?
Was asking the same question. Why as applied rather than facial? Think of it from the perspective of a defense lawyer. Job is to get YOUR client acquitted. Not help millions of fellow residents. Her counsel was apparently OSAD (Office of State Appellate Defender) and likely plead it as applied because he was throwing wet noodles against a wall. Just so happens that one stuck. He wasn't thinking BIG picture. Just "give my client her right to counsel." That being said, if it's unconstitutional as applied in this case, it's unconstitutional on its face because the same onerous BS is placed on everyone who wishes to own a firearm for lawful purposes. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

That being the case, perhaps it would be a very ripe time for a class-action lawsuit using that fact as determined by this decision to challenge the FOID law once and for all.

 

Does IllinoisCarry have the ear of some hard-charging Second Amendment/civil rights attorneys that would be open to entertaining pursuing this? Surely we can GoFundMe, even just among the thousands on this board and their families and friends who support firearm rights, a considerable retainer fee to get the ball rolling.

 

I have an extra $500 in my shooting funds jar that is just sitting around to either purchase a new toy or waiting for my favorite ammo manufacturer to have a big discount code sale. I'd happily repurpose that for a donation if I knew it would actually be applied to that cause.


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#78 Hatchet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,003 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 10

Posted 26 March 2019 - 11:52 AM

I think we would have to wait for the case to be final before that route is traveled. Who knows it might get over turned on appeal. 


"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." (Winston Churchill).

#79 X Ring

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 545 posts
  • Joined: 04-January 13

Posted 26 March 2019 - 02:55 PM

 

Molly, is there any need to start a GoFundMe to help in this effort?  I'm sure there a lot of people here who would be willing to kick in a few bucks - myself included


Rather than a go fund me, we would rather see donations to IllinoisCarry marked Brown case.

 

 

 

Can you provide a link or info on how to do this, for those of us that aren't too savoy? Thanks in advance. 


Life member: NRA, Aurora Sportsmans Club
Member: GOA and ISRA
Remember when the enemy is within range so are you! When in doubt empty the entire mag!

#80 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,928 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 26 March 2019 - 03:26 PM

Molly, is there any need to start a GoFundMe to help in this effort?  I'm sure there a lot of people here who would be willing to kick in a few bucks - myself included


Rather than a go fund me, we would rather see donations to IllinoisCarry marked Brown case.
 
 
Can you provide a link or info on how to do this, for those of us that aren't too savoy? Thanks in advance.
Donation page...http://www.illinoisc...ibe_donate.html
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
SAF Member
GOA Member
🇺🇸

#81 JTHunter

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,613 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 13

Posted 27 March 2019 - 02:17 PM

Imagine the roadblock this would throw in JB & Madigan's way if this case goes in Brown's favor.  Wouldn't that put a "knot in their knickers" !! :devil:  :clap:


“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” - - Abraham Lincoln

“Small minds adhere to the letter of the law; great minds dispense Justice.” - - S. C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Life member NAHC, Endowment member NRA

#82 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,243 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 27 March 2019 - 02:36 PM

Imagine the roadblock this would throw in JB & Madigan's way if this case goes in Brown's favor.  Wouldn't that put a "knot in their knickers" !! :devil:  :clap:

 

It would toss the antis into chaos, at least in this state.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#83 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,119 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 27 March 2019 - 03:24 PM

Imagine the roadblock this would throw in JB & Madigan's way if this case goes in Brown's favor.  Wouldn't that put a "knot in their knickers" !!

 
It would toss the antis into chaos, at least in this state.


It would just add impetus to "universal" background checks (i.e., prohibiting personal transfers) and mandatory firearm registration, which anti-2As already want, anyway. Once upon a time, the argument in favor of the FOID was that anyone could do a background check on anyone just by checking the validity of their FOID; and all the legal firearms were already known to be in the possession of people with FOIDs. Therefore universal background checks and firearm registration were unnecessary for those purposes.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#84 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,102 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 27 March 2019 - 03:31 PM

I wonder if Kwame has the cajones to take this to SCOTUS if he doesn't like the outcome. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#85 gunuser17

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 17

Posted 27 March 2019 - 03:45 PM

The bigger question right now is whether the Illinois Supreme Court, led by Anne Burke, is likely to affirm the trial court's finding.  Given the political makeup of the Illinois Supreme Court, my first thought is that the odds at this point favor reversal and an upholding of the FOID law from a political perspective.  Then it becomes a US Supreme Court fight.  The Illinois Supreme Court could (1) uphold the statute entirely, or (2), I believe, the Ill. Sup. Court could just strike the fee provision and uphold the rest of the statute, or (3) strike the statute in its entirety.  Right now there is little to do but wait the appeal and the decision.  Luckily for us, the case does not go through the intermediate appellate court and, instead, goes straight to the Illinois Supreme Court, so we will have a decision more quickly.


Edited by gunuser17, 27 March 2019 - 03:48 PM.


#86 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,243 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 27 March 2019 - 03:51 PM

It would just add impetus to "universal" background checks (i.e., prohibiting personal transfers) and mandatory firearm registration, which anti-2As already want, anyway. 

 

And that leaves open the same argument about a 'tax on exercising a right' that is unless these rolled out universal background checks are going to be free?  And I would argue that a database of those that choose to exercise a right is an infringement upon the right itself, but that is an argument for another day.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#87 2smartby1/2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 610 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 18

Posted 27 March 2019 - 03:52 PM

The bigger question right now is whether the Illinois Supreme Court, led by Anne Burke, is likely to affirm the trial court's finding.  Given the political makeup of the Illinois Supreme Court, my first thought is that the odds at this point favor reversal and an upholding of the FOID law from a political perspective.  Then it becomes a US Supreme Court fight.  The Illinois Supreme Court could (1) uphold the statute entirely, or (2), I believe, the Ill. Sup. Court could just strike the fee provision and uphold the rest of the statute, or (3) strike the statute in its entirety.  Right now there is little to do but wait the appeal and the decision.  Luckily for us, the case does not go through the intermediate appellate court and, instead, goes straight to the Illinois Supreme Court, so we will have a decision more quickly.

 

I think the whole thing will have to go.  They can't just strike the fee because then a FOID would still require a "permit" to exercise a constitutional right. 



#88 gunuser17

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 17

Posted 27 March 2019 - 04:07 PM

I am not sure that simply requiring a free permit would be prohibited.  Cities are allowed to require permits for parades or speakers corners even though there is a free speech right that prohibits government interference.  Churches still have to get building permits despite the first amendment exercise of religion clause.  I wouldn't be surprised to see an argument by the the Illinois Supreme Court hanging its hat on something like since requiring building permits or special zoning for church construction is permitted in spite of the "free exercise" provision of the 1st amendment, so are the FOID provisions.



#89 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,119 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 27 March 2019 - 04:11 PM

It would just add impetus to "universal" background checks (i.e., prohibiting personal transfers) and mandatory firearm registration, which anti-2As already want, anyway.

 
And that leaves open the same argument about a 'tax on exercising a right' that is unless these rolled out universal background checks are going to be free?  ...


UBC wouldn't be free. It would be the same FFL-transfer fee we already know, but it would be a one-time cost associated with transferring the firearm. There'd just be no on-going fee only to possess a firearm. Eliminating FFL transfer fees on constitutional grounds would be difficult, I think.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#90 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,243 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 27 March 2019 - 06:35 PM

Cities are allowed to require permits for parades or speakers corners even though there is a free speech right that prohibits government interference.

 

Yes, the government can place nondiscriminatory and narrowly drawn minimal (no more than cost) monetary fees, time and place restrictions on a right when it's deemed it will stress resources or will impede the pedestrian or vehicle movement or interfere with peace, but just the same nothing stops those same people even in small groups from walking and speaking along the same exact routes or doing it a park at other times without a permit when there is no need for additional resources and it's not impeding others.  Plus there must be a fee waiver procedure for those that can't afford the fees.

 

Even so this 'assembly' or 'public display' fee is actually something the ACLU actively lobbies against.

 

Churches still have to get building permits despite the first amendment exercise of religion clause.

 

And the 2nd equivalent of that would be that gun ranges still need building permits also, it's not a fee on exercising the right it's a fee on building a structure.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users