23 replies to this topic

[InterestedBystander]

..."A state appellate court this week ruled that the saving grace for Illinois Firearm Owners Identification card law was the fact that its been in place for 51 years and any ruling finding it unconstitutional would upset the status quo."...

GUNS SAVE LIFE, INC., ) Appeal from the
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Circuit Court of
) Sangamon County
v. ) No. 19CH180)

KWAME RAOUL, in His Official Capacity as ) Attorney General of the State of Illinois; and ) BRENDAN KELLY, in His Official Capacity as ) Honorable Acting Director of the Illinois State Police, ) Matthew Maurer, Defendants-Appellee

https://courts.illin...ict/4190334.pdf

...JUSTICE DeARMOND delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

Presiding Justice Holder White and Justice Harris concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION
1 In May 2019, plaintiff, Guns Save Life, Inc. (hereinafter GSL), filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, on behalf of its members, against defendants, Kwame Raoul and Brendan Kelly, in their official capacities, alleging the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (FOID Act) (430 ILCS 65/0.01 et seq. (West 2018)) is unconstitutional as a violation of the federal and state constitutional right to bear arms. Plaintiff claims the FOID Act charges a tax on the rights of Illinoiss citizens provided by the second and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amends. II, XIV) and article I, sections 2 and 22, of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §§ 2, 22) and violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment by improperly requiring one to pay for a license to own a firearm.
- 1

Additionally, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction seeking to restrain enforcement of the FOID Act as a clear violation of the right to keep and bear arms. In a hearing on the motion, the trial court found plaintiff had not met its burden, and plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal.

2 On appeal, plaintiff argues the trial court erred by denying plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction.

We affirm.

Edited by InterestedBystander, 06 December 2019 - 09:56 AM.

[Tim85]

So we can’t rule on wether it’s constitutional because that could mean change. That is some serious crack logic

[Davey]

This seems like it’s just for an injunction. The constitutional challenge remains?

[steveTA84]

Someone file a new lawsuit based on the recent findings that it’s nothing other than a slush fund for the state gov then. Proof is all there

[Flynn]

Upseting the status quo is now a reason for a court to keep an  unconstitutional law in force?  Wow, another court applying a drastically different standard to the 2nd then every other right...

[spec5]

Blacks and Women couldn't vote for quite a long time so Kwame would say what?

 

So we can’t rule on wether it’s constitutional because that could mean change. That is some serious crack logic

[mrmagloo]

 

Blacks and Women couldn't vote for quite a long time so Kwame would say what?

 

So we can’t rule on whether it’s constitutional because that could mean change. That is some serious crack logic

 

 

And much longer than 51 years to boot.  Would have been an excellent point to make.

[DarkLord]

Like anyone believed the court would have ruled otherwise.

[Bo69]

The demonrats dont care about constitution. They wanna tear apart pc by pc.

[RonOglesby - Now in Texas]

Well....

Kinda....

 

Lets not find the most obvious thing here and pump up blood pressures across the fruited plains.  That is really about the preliminary injunction:

 

Further, the purpose of granting the preliminary injunction should be to “preserve[ ] the status quo until the merits of the case are decided.” Clinton Landfill, 406 Ill. - 16 - App. 3d at 378; see also Postma v. Jack Brown Buick, Inc., 157 Ill. 2d 391, 397, 626 N.E.2d 199, 202 (1993) (“The status quo to be preserved by a preliminary injunction is the last, actual, peaceable, uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy.”).

 

 

Ok I can get that. And There is a basis in law there. 

 

But there are good nuggets in here if you care to read the whole thing... Like this:

 

Furthermore, since the FOID Act does not appear consistent with the modern understanding of second amendment jurisprudence, it can reasonably be argued it was not within the scope of the second amendment’s protection at the time of ratification.

 

 

or

However, while general public safety may be sufficient to pass a rational basis review, this reasoning is normally insufficient, particularly when the government provides no reliable evidence supporting its public safety interests to justify the restrictions imposed by the FOID Act and to meet the burden required by intermediate scrutiny.

 

 

It was after a series of at least 6 of these nuggets that they get to the Preliminary injunction question...

 

We've been through a lot of this. We know how courts respond and really know Illinois courts and 2A cases. 

 

Look at the rest of this with a good eye and see some positive. It may help your day... just sayin...

[gunuser17]

As noted above, this is only a decision on the denial of the Preliminary Injunction.  The case still goes on and the analysis on constitutional validity could be much different on the case as a whole when compared to a decision on a request to set aside a law while the case continues.  The court did not rule that the law is constitutional, the court simply ruled that the plaintiff had not met its burden for a preliminary injunction which looks at a variety of factors, only one of which is whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of the case.  As the opinion notes, in Illinois, a preliminary injunction “ ‘should be granted only in situations of extreme emergency or where serious harm would result if the preliminary injunction was not issued.’ ” World Painting Co. v. Costigan, 2012 IL App (4th) 110869, ¶ 11, 967 N.E.2d 485.  Given that basis, it is difficult for any court to grant a preliminary injunction.  I have seen cases where a court says there is a likelihood that a plaintiff can succeed on the merits and still the other factors were relied on to not grant a preliminary injunction.

Edited by gunuser17, 06 December 2019 - 03:25 PM.

[Davey]

Is the case over or was this just for an injunction?

[lockman]

Most of the onerous provisions of the FOID were changed in state law over the last couple decades.

[stockboyy]

Para 49 Pg23:

Plaintiff does not contend its rights and obligations under the FOID Act are in danger; instead, plaintiff contends the FOID Act itself violates its members’ constitutional right to own and possess firearms under the second amendment. It is that protectable right which it contends is threatened by the mere existence of the FOID Act.

Para 50 Pg23:

 For these reasons, we believe plaintiff has established a clearly ascertained legal right in need of protection.

[Ranger]

"Para 50 Pg23:

For these reasons, we believe plaintiff has established a clearly ascertained legal right in need of protection."

That sounds good!

[Bitter Clinger]

Let's hope they run with that.

 

We really need a good case to get rid of the FOID.

[CILhunter]

As was stated above, this is just for the preliminary injunction.  The Constitutional challenge will have a full hearing on the merits once the case has wound its way through the Court system, but the FOID will continue until that happens.  I HATE the FOID, but from a legal perspective this is actually sound logic, and it should be applied to every instance where a party asks for a preliminary injunction.  In essence, a party must prove that they are uniquely damaged by the current law, or will suffer irreparable harm, if the law is not "paused" while the full case is heard by the Court.  This is VERY hard to do when the law has been in effect for 51 years, and has essentially been unchallenged until recently.  It was definitely a tactical error to fail to challenge the FOID legally from day one.  But that's where we are.  I don't think the FOID will stand up to the level of scrutiny currently applied to 2A cases, and that scrutiny will almost certainly get narrower and more restrictive after SCOTUS rules on a few of the cases before it.  We just have to wait.

[stockboyy]

We have been Over-Infringed way to long by the FOID (Status-Quo).

 Any relief we can get in-whole  or  in-part is worth the effort.

[cope]

On the surface it may seem like it was the logical decision, as due to the longevity of the law no 'immediate' harm will occurr. One second longer of FOID is immediate harm.

 

Just remember a right delayed is a right denied. Failure to immediately apply an injuction and halt the law is the exact same as ruling it constitutional.

 

We can only hope nobody dies as a result of denial of rights. Seems like potential for death is pretty immediately harmful.

[CILhunter]

On the surface it may seem like it was the logical decision, as due to the longevity of the law no 'immediate' harm will occurr. One second longer of FOID is immediate harm.

 

Just remember a right delayed is a right denied. Failure to immediately apply an injuction and halt the law is the exact same as ruling it constitutional.

 

We can only hope nobody dies as a result of denial of rights. Seems like potential for death is pretty immediately harmful.

 

Of course the FOID restrictions are immediate harm.  The problem is the "pro-gun groups" and Illinois RINOS left the FOID unchallenged for 51 years.  It's really hard to go to the Court and say "I'm irreparably harmed by this law", when the Court is perfectly justified in asking "Were you also irreparably harmed in 1969? Because there was no such claim until very recently." We let the FOID exist unchallenged for so long because we were so busy "compromising" with the gun banners that we have made our bed, and now must lie in it.  Let this be a lesson to the rest of the US: DO NOT roll over and accept an unconstitutional law, expecting that "eventually" it will get overturned.  Work to overturn it from the day it is signed, and DO NOT COMPROMISE any more.

[mab22]

On the surface it may seem like it was the logical decision, as due to the longevity of the law no 'immediate' harm will occurr. One second longer of FOID is immediate harm.
 
Just remember a right delayed is a right denied. Failure to immediately apply an injuction and halt the law is the exact same as ruling it constitutional.
 
We can only hope nobody dies as a result of denial of rights. Seems like potential for death is pretty immediately harmful.

 
Of course the FOID restrictions are immediate harm.  The problem is the "pro-gun groups" and Illinois RINOS left the FOID unchallenged for 51 years.  It's really hard to go to the Court and say "I'm irreparably harmed by this law", when the Court is perfectly justified in asking "Were you also irreparably harmed in 1969? Because there was no such claim until very recently." We let the FOID exist unchallenged for so long because we were so busy "compromising" with the gun banners that we have made our bed, and now must lie in it.  Let this be a lesson to the rest of the US: DO NOT roll over and accept an unconstitutional law, expecting that "eventually" it will get overturned.  Work to overturn it from the day it is signed, and DO NOT COMPROMISE any more.

I was born after 69 and was unable to voice my opinion at the time, I was unaware of the law and act for quite some time.....

[ChicagoRonin70]

I wasn't even born in 1969, so yes, I was born being irreparably harmed.

[Yas]

What reparations should be demanded for 50 years of oppression? I like steve was also too young to have my voice heard when this onerous restriction was legislated on my future rights as a gun owner.

[stockboyy]

I was 14 at the time,

and recall my dad (WWII Army Veteran) reading a Mailed-notice about the need to

 get a FOID-CARD!! 

  He could not believe it !!.