Jump to content

Phatty

Members
  • Posts

    617
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Phatty's Achievements

Member

Member (13/24)

  1. I provided my own opinion as to the proper interpretation of Section 40 in Post #37. I'm not the director of the ISP, so my opinion of how the law should be read makes no difference to the ISP, who is actually in charge of handling the application process. In Post #44, I expressed my hope that there will be a successful challenge to the ISP's (in my opinion incorrect) interpretation of the law. I'm not sure how those two posts are either inconsistent or misleading. The only thing possibly inconsistent is that in Post #37 I said that I wasn't sure what ISP's official interpretation was, but by the time I posted in Post #44, Riverpilot had showed convincingly ISP's official stance. IC and Todd V. and others have repeatedly disagreed with the way the ISP has interpreted the FCCA and expressed an intent to challenge those misinterpretations. Are you saying that by doing so, they are confusing people? If you simply disagree with my opinion, that's fine, I'll respect that. But it seems like any opinion different from yours is classified as misleading. If something I post is against IC's official stance or will hurt the cause, just let me know and I'll keep it to myself.
  2. Don't give up so easily mauserme. I agree it looks like ISP is interpreting the provision as Riverpilot read it, but there's enough ambiguity in the statute that a resident of Hawaii could challenge it in court and win. Of course, if the point is to challenge the entire nonresident license scheme as unconstitutional because it effectively prevents any nonresident from obtaining a license, then you would want to strongly argue that this provision requires a nonresident to have a license in their home state.
  3. Not surprisingly, I interpret the FCCA differently. Section 40 identifies the requirements that a non-resident must meet, and then identifies what needs to be submitted with the application. The list of items to be submitted is not meant to serve as an additional set of qualifications, but instead, is meant to aid the ISP in determining whether an applicant meets the requirements. A copy of the non-resident's CCL from their home state, if applicable, is supposed to be submitted with the application. I read this statement as nothing more than, "if you have a CCL from your home state, please provide a copy of it with your application." The funny thing is that in the ISP's list of eligibility requirements for a non-resident applicant, there is nothing about needing to have a CCL from your home state. But, as you mentioned, the checklist adds that little gem. I'm still not convinced that the ISP's formal stance is that you need to have a CCL from your home state, or if the checklist is just sloppily written.
  4. Funny thing is Hawaii is a May Issue state... And from what I've heard they've pretty much never issued any CCL's. So pretty much nobody from out of state can apply. There's no requirement that a non-resident must have a CCL from their home state in order to apply for an Illinois non-resident's license.
  5. The Court relisted another case of his on the same day (Lane v. Holder). A relist means that the Court is taking a very close look at the particular case, and generally means that the case has a decent shot of being granted. Lane v Holder is also 2A related, isn't it? Indirectly, yes. The complaint challenged the federal ban on a person purchasing a firearm from a state in which they do not reside and the Virginia statute that prohibits the sale of a handgun to any nonresident. The district court held that the plaintiffs did not have standing and the 4th Circuit agreed. So, it technically is a "standing" case, but the Second Amendment is definitely a big consideration in the case.
  6. The Court relisted another case of his on the same day (Lane v. Holder). A relist means that the Court is taking a very close look at the particular case, and generally means that the case has a decent shot of being granted.
  7. The petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court this morning.
  8. I need a link to this law or the case setting this precedent, please. Check out 18 USC 921(a)(33)((ii). "A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is 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." Incidentally, there is a sister provision for felony convictions located at 921(a)(20). The Illinois Supreme Court's decision this morning was that a person can have their rights restored as contemplated by 921(a)(33)((ii) by going through the procedure outlined in 430 ILCS 65/10© -- which is the section of the FOID act that allows a person to challenge a denial of a FOID card in court.
  9. It's also huge for everyone in the state that is currently being prosecuted for an AUUW charge that was pre-FCCA. They've all just been given a get-out-of-jail-free card. Edit: It also shows why many state's attorneys that refused to prosecute anyone for UUW charges after the Moore decision came down were very wise not to waste resources on those cases.
  10. That's what I was saying..... And that's the million dollar question. The Illinois Supreme Court only held that the law pre-FCCA was unconstitutional. They could very well hold that the law is no longer unconstitutional after FCCA was enacted. More specifically, after FCCA was enacted but before anyone can actually get a license, is the law still unconstitutional? This is the same question that the 7th Circuit is currently considering.
  11. Under federal law, if a state has restored the civil rights of a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, then that person is no longer banned by federal law from possessing firearms. So the state judge's order should be treated under federal law as a restoration of the person's civil rights, and the federal ban would no longer apply to that person.
  12. It may not have been a 100% win, but it is still a huge victory, especially considering the venue (Illinois Supreme Court).
  13. Two big wins in the Illinois Supreme Court this morning. Update with more information to follow. Edit with more info: In People v. Aguilar, the Illinois Supreme Court held that there is a 2A right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense (essentially agreeing with the 7th Circuit's opinion in Moore) and therefore found that AUUW was unconstitutional and reversed Aguilar's conviction. However, the Illinois Supreme Court found that it is constitutional to ban minors from possessing firearms and upheld Aguilar's conviction under the minor in possession of a firearm statute. In Coram v. The State of Illinois, the plaintiff was previously convicted of misdemeanour domestic battery, and therefore, was barred by federal law from possessing a firearm. The plaintiff sued in state court seeking to force ISP to issue him a FOID based on the argument that the federal ban was unconstitutional. The downstate judge ruled in plaintiff's favor finding that the federal ban was unconstitutional and ordering ISP to issue the plaintiff a FOID. ISP appealed and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order forcing the ISP to give a FOID to the plaintiff, but the supreme court also found that it was unnecessary for the trial court to reach the constitutional question so the supreme court overruled that part of the judge's order that found the federal ban unconstitutional. The take away from this case is that a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanour domestic battery charge has the opportunity to convince a judge that they are not a danger and should be entitled to regain their right to possess a firearm. If the judge is persuaded, the judge can revest the plaintiff with the right to possess a firearm and order the ISP to issue a FOID card.
×
×
  • Create New...