Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
347 replies to this topic

#331 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,757 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted Today, 08:05 AM

 35 CONCLUSION ¶ 36 The circuit court’s ruling that section 2(a)(1) of the FOID Card Act is unconstitutional as applied was not necessary to the resolution of this case. Therefore, we remand this cause to the circuit court. We direct that the order entered by the circuit court on February 14, 2018, be vacated. We further direct that the October 16, 2018, judgment order dismissing defendant’s information be vacated and then modified to exclude the ruling that section 2(a)(1) is unconstitutional. The - 13 -modified order is thereupon to be reentered.

 

37 Vacated and remanded with directions.

 


"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

#332 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,757 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted Today, 08:07 AM

JUSTICE KARMEIER, dissenting: ¶ 39 The majority’s decision resolves this appeal based on an issue no one has raised, decides the issue through misapplication of principles we have no reason to discuss, and remands the case to the circuit court for entry of an order that is clearly meritless and serves no purpose. Neither the parties nor the interests of justice will be served by this unexpected and pointless exercise. I therefore respectfully dissent.

 


"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

#333 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,757 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted Today, 08:24 AM

Looks like the court punted and sent it back to circuit court.


"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

#334 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,884 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted Today, 08:25 AM

Basically she passed the buck without making the FOID ACT unconstitutional therefore covering her a**. SMH

Edited by THE KING, Today, 08:26 AM.


NRA Patriot Life Member - Endowment
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Retired Professional Firefighter / Paramedic


#335 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,757 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted Today, 08:36 AM

They seem to be saying the circuit court could have dismissed the case against her or found her not guilty, without finding the statute unconstitutional . . .

 

shoooeee that's a doozie.


"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

#336 davel501

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 18

Posted Today, 08:38 AM

They seem to be saying the circuit court could have dismissed the case against her or found her not guilty, without finding the statute unconstitutional . . .
 
shoooeee that's a doozie.


That's what I read too. She won, we lost.

#337 gunuser17

    Member

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

Posted Today, 08:40 AM

So the case goes back to the trial court, the opinion is modified as directed by the IL Supreme Court.  The case then goes up on appeal to an intermediate appellate court as to whether the FOID act applies in the home if the State appeals.   Assuming the state appeals, the appellate court either affirms the finding or reverses the trial court and finds that the FOID act does apply in the home.  Then, a potential appeal to IL Supreme Court who could find FOID does not apply in home - ending case.  If Supreme Court finds that FOID does apply in home, then I believe that the trial court could ultimately revisit and re-enter the unconstitutional finding and then that goes up to the Supreme Court again.  A long and winding road.


Edited by gunuser17, Today, 08:47 AM.


#338 MrSmallie

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • Pip
  • 79 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 17

Posted Today, 08:58 AM

More likely scenario is that trial court grants her a win and the State doesn't object or appeal and everything stays as it is.



#339 burningspear

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 798 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 07

Posted Today, 09:04 AM

You are correct.

I believe that Brown is not the vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of the people registration system known as the FOID Act.



#340 Coiled

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 14

Posted Today, 09:35 AM

And once again they dance around the ladder.

#341 ilphil

    Ornery Skeptic

  • Members
  • 2,921 posts
  • Joined: 29-January 05

Posted Today, 09:46 AM

That poor lady is going to die of old age waiting for this fiasco to finally be settled. 



#342 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,757 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted Today, 09:54 AM

From my understanding:

the two circuit court judgments are to be vacated and the court shall find Ms. Brown not guilty by claiming the FOID Act does not apply to her in her home - but not on the basis of saying the FOID Act is unconstitutional.


"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

#343 crufflesmuth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 16

Posted Today, 10:03 AM

From my understanding:

the two circuit court judgments are to be vacated and the court shall find Ms. Brown not guilty by claiming the FOID Act does not apply to her in her home - but not on the basis of saying the FOID Act is unconstitutional.

 

So does this mean we can all let our FOID cards expire?



#344 PewPewBangBang

  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 20

Posted Today, 10:11 AM

 

From my understanding:

the two circuit court judgments are to be vacated and the court shall find Ms. Brown not guilty by claiming the FOID Act does not apply to her in her home - but not on the basis of saying the FOID Act is unconstitutional.

 

So does this mean we can all let our FOID cards expire?

 

IANAL, but to be honest, it sounds like the only way to get a case back in front of them would be to take a firearm outside the home without a foid. I’m seriously considering doing that. The getting arrested for it is the hard part. Haha.

 

If I went to a range downstate without a foid and asked to shoot do you think they’d call the cops on me?  :rofl:


Edited by PewPewBangBang, Today, 10:14 AM.


#345 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,744 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted Today, 11:20 AM

Jeez, how can anyone suggest that the law that was used to prosecute someone is good to stand, but you cannot convict her for breaching it?  What the hey!!! W-T-F kind of Illinois Democratic Machine brain dead logic is that?


Edited by mrmagloo, Today, 11:20 AM.


#346 crufflesmuth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 16

Posted Today, 11:23 AM

From my understanding:

the two circuit court judgments are to be vacated and the court shall find Ms. Brown not guilty by claiming the FOID Act does not apply to her in her home - but not on the basis of saying the FOID Act is unconstitutional.

 

Wasn't expecting the FOID to be nixed; I was expecting them to strike the possession requirement though.



#347 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,884 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted Today, 11:45 AM

Jeez, how can anyone suggest that the law that was used to prosecute someone is good to stand, but you cannot convict her for breaching it?  What the hey!!! W-T-F kind of Illinois Democratic Machine brain dead logic is that?


Very Good Point.

NRA Patriot Life Member - Endowment
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Retired Professional Firefighter / Paramedic


#348 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,443 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted Today, 12:01 PM

 

Jeez, how can anyone suggest that the law that was used to prosecute someone is good to stand, but you cannot convict her for breaching it?  What the hey!!! W-T-F kind of Illinois Democratic Machine brain dead logic is that?


Very Good Point.

 

My interpretation is you can still be convicted for not having a FOID for anything beyond simple possession inside your home, and the case was remanded because striking the entire statute was overkill


"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly,
flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to
intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."
-Chicago Times review of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.





17 user(s) are reading this topic

4 members, 12 guests, 0 anonymous users


    byxlaw, aerxx, Facebook (1), ghull, PewPewBangBang