Frank Posted February 27, 2015 at 01:26 PM Share Posted February 27, 2015 at 01:26 PM I searched and couldn't find it. I thought we had a thread on this case. This is the lawsuit brought on behalf of an Ohio woman who wanted to possess a handgun in Illinois but couldn't because she was ineligible for a non-resident FOID card. I thought this case was dead, settled when UUW/FOID act was changed. I guess I was wrong. I ran across this at mdshooters.com: A complete round of briefing began in this case last October 31st, finishing in early December, in the form of a revised set of Motion for Summary Judgement. This following the new laws on carry in the Land of Lincoln.http://ia600501.us.archive.org/15/it...72.docket.htmlReminder, from Plaintiff's 10/31 filing, of the gist of this case going after IL's non-resident prohibitions on getting an IL FOID.Quote:The Firearms Owners Identification Card Act (“FOID Act”) generally makes it unlawfulfor a person to possess firearms and ammunition in Illinois, even for self-defense, unless aperson has been issued a Firearms Owner Identification card (“FOID card”). Ms. Mishaga,however, is ineligible for a FOID card because she is a resident of Ohio. Ms. Mishaga is also notexempt from the requirements in the FOID Act, because, under Ohio law, she does not need alicense or registration to possess a firearm for self-defense in her Ohio home. Therefore, theFOID Act prohibits her from lawfully possessing a firearm for self-defense while she is a guestin her friends’ Illinois home.This prohibition is unconstitutional because it deprives Ms. Mishaga of the fundamentalright to possess a firearm for self-defense that is guaranteed by the Second Amendment andapplicable against the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. -- Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted February 27, 2015 at 05:33 PM Share Posted February 27, 2015 at 05:33 PM http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=35373&page=1 It's in the archives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted February 27, 2015 at 07:31 PM Share Posted February 27, 2015 at 07:31 PM And wow, going on 5 years . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted October 23, 2015 at 06:19 PM Share Posted October 23, 2015 at 06:19 PM Good news!The case is now named "Mishaga v, Schmitz." It was recently heard by Judge Myerscough in the U.S. Central District Court of Illinois, who issued her opinion on Sep 30, 2015. The decision bodes well for nonresidents.Note that Judge Myerscough is also currently presiding over Culp v. Madigan, a case involving concealed carry licensing of nonresidents; and ruled on Moore v. Madigan (against the plaintiffs) before it was appealed to the 7th circuit court.To recap, the plaintiff wants to be able to possess a firearm in Illinois for purposes of self-defense while visiting a friend's home in Illinois, but fears prosecution because she doesn't have a license to possess a firearm or ammunition issued by her home state of Ohio--a requirement codified within the FOID Act. Ohio doesn't issue a physical license to possess a firearm, but they do issue concealed carry licenses. The plaintiff does not have a concealed carry license from Ohio, nor does she desire to obtain one.The FOID Act provides, in part: (a)(1) No person may acquire or possess any firearm . . . within this State without having in his or her possession a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued in his or her name by the Department of State Police under the provisions of this Act. 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(1).The FOID Act's Exception 10 further states: ( b ) The provisions of this Section regarding the possession of firearms, firearm ammunition, stun guns, and tasers do not apply to:***(10) Nonresidents who are currently licensed or registered to possess a firearm in their resident state.Judge Myerscough dismissed the case and agreed with the defendants that the plaintiff can legally possess firearms and ammunition in her friend's Illinois home without a FOID Card or a physical license of any type from her home state.The Court concluded that "licensed" referred to legal eligibility, with or without a license document. Since Ohio imposes no requirement to be issued a license document in order to possess a firearm or ammunition, the broader definition is appropriate.This is good news for nonresidents and (based on my understanding) goes beyond the similar People v. Holmes ruling.Read the analysis here:http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020151002N54/Mishaga%20v.%20Schmitz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplant Posted October 23, 2015 at 10:31 PM Share Posted October 23, 2015 at 10:31 PM Does this mean that non residents can purchase ammo in Illannoy now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplant Posted October 23, 2015 at 10:32 PM Share Posted October 23, 2015 at 10:32 PM And what about renting firearms at a range? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted October 23, 2015 at 10:34 PM Share Posted October 23, 2015 at 10:34 PM Does this mean that non residents can purchase ammo in Illannoy now? I think this only applies to possession, not purchase Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplant Posted October 23, 2015 at 10:35 PM Share Posted October 23, 2015 at 10:35 PM Does this mean that non residents can purchase ammo in Illannoy now?I think this only applies to possession, not purchase Sent from my SM-G920P using TapatalkI can't possess ammo if I can't purchase ammo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted October 23, 2015 at 10:38 PM Share Posted October 23, 2015 at 10:38 PM If you can purchase it in your home state you can possess it in IL, but not purchase. Same would apply to firearms Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplant Posted October 23, 2015 at 11:28 PM Share Posted October 23, 2015 at 11:28 PM The whole notion that Ohio licenses people to possess a handgun in their home is a tortured load of nonsense. Ohio declines to regulate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted October 23, 2015 at 11:42 PM Share Posted October 23, 2015 at 11:42 PM Does this mean that non residents can purchase ammo in Illannoy now? Nonresidents have always been allowed (legally) to buy ammo in Illinois, but many vendors refuse to sell it to them. The ruling helps expand the meaning of "licensed" in a way that favors nonresident possession AND purchase, since the Section 2( b )(10) exception is incorporated by reference in Section 3( c ) of the FOID Act (provisions for transfer of ammo). But I don't think a vendor is going to change their policies just because a nonresident shows a printed copy of Judge Myerscough's opinion to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted October 23, 2015 at 11:51 PM Share Posted October 23, 2015 at 11:51 PM The whole notion that Ohio licenses people to possess a handgun in their home is a tortured load of nonsense. Ohio declines to regulate it. You are misreading the Judge's conclusion. "Licensed" refers to the nonresident, and is equivalent to "legal eligibility." She never said Ohio licenses their residents to possess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplant Posted October 23, 2015 at 11:54 PM Share Posted October 23, 2015 at 11:54 PM This is a bad ruling, and this is why: The point here is only that a state may grant its residents license to possess firearms in many ways consistent with the Second AmendmentWRONG. States do not grant this permission. It is a natural RIGHT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted October 24, 2015 at 12:05 AM Share Posted October 24, 2015 at 12:05 AM This is a bad ruling, and this is why:The point here is only that a state may grant its residents license to possess firearms in many ways consistent with the Second AmendmentWRONG.States do not grant this permission. It is a natural RIGHT.Of course, like many here on IC, I agree it is a natural right. But also realize the judge did not issue a ruling stating what you've quoted. That was mentioned merely as a footnote, based on another District Court's decision (Heller v. D.C.--not the original one). It wasn't central to the question nor to the opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted October 24, 2015 at 02:53 PM Share Posted October 24, 2015 at 02:53 PM Judge Myerscough dismissed the case and agreed with the defendants that the plaintiff can legally possess firearms and ammunition in her friend's Illinois home without a FOID Card or a physical license of any type from her home state.How does the plaintiff legally transport it to the friend's home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted October 25, 2015 at 10:40 PM Share Posted October 25, 2015 at 10:40 PM How does the plaintiff legally transport it to the friend's home? Unloaded and in a case. Paragraph (9) in the list of exemptions allows this. But of course, if she had her OH CHP, loaded & concealed on her person would be allowed in the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitter Clinger Posted November 2, 2015 at 03:33 PM Share Posted November 2, 2015 at 03:33 PM Yet another reason why the whole FOID card thing is unconstitutional and must be eliminated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.