Jump to content

FOID Revoked Over a 22 Year Old Battery Conviction


Recommended Posts

I had a foid card since 2003. Last week I attempted to purchase a new hand gun and the state revoked my foid card providing a domestic battery conviction as the reason for revocation. The issue is that I had never been convicted of domestic battery but rather a simple battery back in 1997 when I was in college. I had to submit my foid to the police department and transfer my weapons.

 

Not sure how to proceed, I could file the appeal paperwork and wait for up to a year to get a response, if I'm lucky enough to receive one at all or should I hire an attorney and take it to the circuit court? I honestly feel like it's a deliberate tactic that Illinois is using to confiscate guns from people because I imagine many people would just throw in a towel and not fight it and even when they do, they still have their right to own a gun taken away for months at best.

 

I have not been in trouble since the battery conviction, had a foid issued that was also renewal and purchased many guns since, why are they revoking my card now? It's so frustrating, I feel trapped with no way to win. Is it possible that the state is rewriting the rules and including battery as a reason for lifetime revocation?

 

Please help any thoughts or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it was a stupid fight with an ex girlfriend that i didn't live with. I chose not to fight it in court because the prosecutor offered a plea deal of simple battery and probation so I accepted. Being in college I couldn't afford an attorney and wanted to get the whole ordeal behind me asap.

 

My issue is that if the state could just up the battery charge to domestic battery after the fact, I would have never accepted the plea agreement in the first place. I would have taken a loan and fought the case. I ran a background check and the charge is 720 ILCS 5/12-3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See here

 

http://altondailynews.com/mobile/news/details.cfm?id=294576#.XfbnjSVMElQ

 

 

 

This is insane. I personally find it ludicrous that someone could legally own firearms, then all of a sudden they change the law and say -nope, not any more- after having legally owned them for so many years

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just can't believe that I was convicted of battery 720 ILCS 5/12-3 but 22 years later the state decides to consider it a charge of 720 ILCS 5/12-3.2 which is domestic battery. It just doesn't make sense, I was not convicted of domestic violence why should I be treated as I have. Why not just consider it an attempted murder if they can assume any charge they want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just can't believe that I was convicted of battery 720 ILCS 5/12-3 but 22 years later the state decides to consider it a charge of 720 ILCS 5/12-3.2 which is domestic battery. It just doesn't make sense, I was not convicted of domestic violence why should I be treated as I have. Why not just consider it an attempted murder if they can assume any charge they want.

Changing a decades old settled case seems like a major issue. I hope there’s a way to challenge this (not only for you, but the whole issue of it happening to others as well).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IL Supreme Court ruling may be the answer we need. Hope to hear from the court in the next four months.

 

In the meantime, you can file for a pardon. Be sure to require all rights, including the right to keep and bear arms be restored. Check into having the conviction vacated/overturned in the circuit Court where you were convicted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what these revocations are based on. The current revocations are happening when the battery convictions show up in the background check for an application or renewal of FOID/CCL.


https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1117-restrictions-possession-firearms-individuals-convicted

Qualifying Offenses: As enacted the statute defines "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" (MCDV) as any state or federal misdemeanor that -"has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim."

 

This definition includes all misdemeanors that involve the use or attempted use of physical force (e.g., simple assault, assault and battery), if the offense is committed by one of the defined parties. This is true whether or not the statute specifically defines the offense as a domestic violence misdemeanor. For example, a person convicted of misdemeanor assault against his or her spouse would be prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms. It is anticipated that this issue will be subject to litigation. In the event of such litigation, the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section should be notified so that assistance can be provided.

 

Date of Previous Conviction: The prohibition applies to persons convicted of such misdemeanors at any time, even if the conviction occurred prior to the new law's effective date, September 30, 1996. See United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 246 (1994)(denying ex post facto challenge to a 922(g)(1) conviction) and United States v. Waters, 23 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1994)(ex post facto based challenge to a 922(g)(4) conviction).

 

Limitations on Previous Convictions -- 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(B]. To qualify:(1) at the time of previous conviction, the defendant must have been represented by counsel, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel;(2) if the offense of previous conviction entitled the person to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either the case was tried by a jury, or the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise; and (3) the conviction can not have been expunged or set aside, or be an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms. The issue of restoration of civil rights must be carefully researched for each potential defendant. For example, in some states a person automatically loses his/her civil rights upon the execution of a sentence of imprisonment (felony or misdemeanor) only to have the rights restored upon the defendant's release from prison or sentence. However, in those states, a person who does not serve a sentence of imprisonment may not lose their civil rights and, therefor, this limitation may not be applicable. But, in United States v. Indelicato, 97 F.3d 627 (1st Cir. 1996), the Court held that in at least some instances if one group of felons may possess a firearm because their rights were automatically taken away and then restored then those who do not have their rights taken away may also possess a firearm. The Terrorism and Violent Crime Section can provide assistance in analyzing particular cases.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...