Jump to content

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


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

 

 

^^^^

The anti-gun people will be out and there will be propaganda all over social media on how this decision could turn Illinois into the Wild West etc. keeping those people in check and engaging them is a must.

It wont turn us into the Wild West, it will just make Illinois like any other state in the union that does not require the card. Like with concealed carry, the Illinois politicians are so arrogant that they think they are wiser than the politicians in every other state.
Didnt hear much after the shootouts and blood running in streets events did not happen after passing CCL. They like to point to the handful of states remotely similar instead of the other 40+ that arent set up like IL yet do not have their issues. Its sad that most of these legislators know nothing about firearms and arent interested in educating themselves before introducing a bill that does nothing but feels good.

 

 

I think for at least some of them it goes beyond feeling good (though I don't discount that). I'd be curious how many of the "true believers" would lose a little fervency if there was zero chance of tangible gain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the appellate response brief:

...

So the State not only wishes to unconstitutionally force lawful firearm users to go through its requirements simply to be able to defend their own homes, but the State is now arguing that everyone in the house should be forced to fulfill those requirements or, presumably, face criminal penalties. Since it is unconstitutional to force the licensing scheme upon the homeowner, forcing said scheme upon non-firearm-using residents is an outrageous suggestion which exposes the State's true intentions as to the infringements of the FOID Card system. This Court should emphatically reject the State's assertion.

...

In light of the above, the Defendant-Appellee ... respectfully requests this Honorable Court to affirm the Orders of the circuit court that 430 ILCS 65(a)(2), as-applied to her, unconstitutionally infringes on her Second Amendment rights, as it does upon law-abiding persons who wish to possess a long gun in their homes for lawful purposes ...

I haven't read the Plaintiff's case, but apparently the State is arguing that all people with access to an unsecured firearm (i.e., everyone in a household where a firearm exists) must possess a FOID on or about their person at all times when they have said access, otherwise they would be in violation of the FOID Act. Sigale is asking the court to rule on that non-legislated expansion of the FOID Act (presumably to keep it out of case law).

 

Additionally, this case won't "Void the FOID" as some people would like it to do. It would only suspend the requirement to possess a FOID for long guns kept exclusively in the home. It would leave in place the requirement to possess a FOID for handguns anywhere and for long guns outside the home.

 

Also, I think he means 430 ILCS 65/2(a), not 430 ILCS 65(a)(2). Hopefully the court will be forgiving of typos.

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the appellate response brief:...So the State not only wishes to unconstitutionally force lawful firearm users to go through its requirements simply to be able to defend their own homes, but the State is now arguing that everyone in the house should be forced to fulfill those requirements or, presumably, face criminal penalties. Since it is unconstitutional to force the licensing scheme upon the homeowner, forcing said scheme upon non-firearm-using residents is an outrageous suggestion which exposes the State's true intentions as to the infringements of the FOID Card system. This Court should emphatically reject the State's assertion....In light of the above, the Defendant-Appellee ... respectfully requests this Honorable Court to affirm the Orders of the circuit court that 430 ILCS 65(a)(2), as-applied to her, unconstitutionally infringes on her Second Amendment rights, as it does upon law-abiding persons who wish to possess a long gun in their homes for lawful purposes ...I haven't read the Plaintiff's case, but apparently the State is arguing that all people with access to an unsecured firearm (i.e., everyone in a household where a firearm exists) must possess a FOID on or about their person at all times when they have said access, otherwise they would be in violation of the FOID Act. Sigale is asking the court to rule on that non-legislated expansion of the FOID Act (presumably to keep it out of case law).Additionally, this case won't "Void the FOID" as some people would like it to do. It would only suspend the requirement to possess a FOID for long guns kept exclusively in the home. It would leave in place the requirement to possess a FOID for handguns anywhere and for long guns outside the home.Also, I think he means 430 ILCS 65/2(a), not 430 ILCS 65(a)(2). Hopefully the court will be forgiving of typos.

 

By logical extension possession of handguns would be included as per Heller they are the ‘ quintessential ‘ tool of self-defense. Transport to and from the range, the gun shop, or repair shop would also be logically included by extension through Ezell.

 

With the exception of the fee in order to exercise a constitutional right, upholding the circuit court judges decision would basically reset the FOID act back to the way it was when it was originally passed.

 

 

^ this ***

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“The problem, of course, is if you have to transfer it to and from and that was not covered in this case, so you’d still need a FOID card,” Pearson said.

 

I don't get this. If the FOID is unconstitutional, then why would you need it for anything. I'm also concerned as to how the original ruling stated that it was unconstitutional "in this particular case". Do we have a 2nd amendment civil right or don't we? Do we have equal application of the law, or don't we?

Why are these cases trying to narrow the rulings down to a very specific, tiny thing?

 

If I still need to have a FOID to buy, possess or "transfer to and from" a firearm or ammunition, then what's the point?

So I may not need a FOID to keep a firearm "in my home", but I'll need it if I ever want to take it out of my home? The whole thing is absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, but the last couple of posts confuse me? I thought the objective of this case was to render the FOID entirely as unconstitutional? I'm not sure if someone is misinterpreting the briefs, but sounds like some serious backpeddling? Why would he allow the parsing out of long gun instead of insisting on the word of 'firearm' that covers all? That basically undermines the big picture objective. So now the argument is only for the right to have a rifle without a FOID in your home only, but for anything else you need it? What's the point?

Edited by mrmagloo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This case has a very narrow scope that is intended to go after the very basic right of 'in the home', just as the Heller case did. It lays groundwork for future challenges.

 

Plus only issues raised in the initial case can be addressed in the appeal. New issues and arguments are not allowed.

 

My point is, look at the very first post in this thread. The key points of contention then was, the FOID Act was unconstitutional in regards to the licensing and taxing requirement to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition in your own home. And, Judge ruled requiring a license and charging a fee/tax to exercise a Constitutional right in the home unconstitutional. Note the word FIREARM - Not, long gun.

 

So naturally, when you already have a win saying that a fee or tax, or other limitation infringing on your right to have a Firearm or Ammunition in your home, why wouldn't we continue that with that same argument, and NOT on our own, start diluting our position by now dropping every thing but long arms? And, what happened to the ammo? The key point being there is, if it's legal to have ammo in your home, it has to be legal to purchase as well without a FOID. At that point, the entire FOID crumbles. However, with this sudden dilution, the key points that would have gutted the FOID just went out the window? Why?? We are in the process of winning the Superbowl, and at the same time, killing this new house FOID bill they passed, and now we want to start giving away our leverage? I don't get it?

Edited by mrmagloo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the FOID is necessary to transport after this case, perhps it becomes the functional equivalent to the NYC permit being challenged in the USSC. If that case goes our way, FOID gets nuked.

In the NYSRPA case, possession of a "permit" actually prohibits transporting firearms. In IL, a FOID (which is effectively a permit) allows state residents to transport firearms. There would have to be a couple dots in-between to connect those two, although the arguments would be similar.

 

The NYSRPA case is set up to decide that being prohibited from transporting a legally owned handgun beyond the home is a 2nd Amendment violation.

 

If a FOID is no longer required to keep a long gun in the home, then requiring a FOID to transport a long gun outside the home is a 2nd Amendment violation using the same arguments. It wouldn't follow the NYSRPA precedent. It would be a new precedent with the same arguments.

 

It would only apply to long guns, though, which seems artificial to me. Both long guns and handguns go bang when you pull the switch, and the issue would still be just transport, not carry. The only difference is the size of the enclosing case (no pun intended).

 

Task vs. goal orientation: If you can't complete the tasks, you will never reach the goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it, this case may go two ways:

 

1. Partial strike down = FOID continues to exist, but ONLY as a permit to purchase and NOT a requisite for mere possession

 

2. Full strike down = no more FOID

 

In the case of the second scenario, many problems would arise (can't list them here though)

Edited by crufflesmuth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it, this case may go two ways:

 

1. Partial strike down = FOID continues to exist, but ONLY as a permit to purchase and NOT a requisite for mere possession

 

2. Full strike down = no more FOID

 

In the case of the second scenario, many problems would arise (can't list them here though)

What is your single, worst case scenario, if a "Full strike down" happens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The way I see it, this case may go two ways:

 

1. Partial strike down = FOID continues to exist, but ONLY as a permit to purchase and NOT a requisite for mere possession

 

2. Full strike down = no more FOID

 

In the case of the second scenario, many problems would arise (can't list them here though)

 

 

What is your single, worst case scenario, if a "Full strike down" happens?

 

Without the FOID criminals will have access to firearms. WAIT! Criminals had just as much access to guns under FOID. So that’s not it.

 

Realistically there is no downside to striking the FOID! Background check still take place when you buy guns from the dealer. Murder is still murder armed robbery is still armed robbery. and state storm troopers don’t break down my door retrieving guns because I have an expired permission slip.

 

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The way I see it, this case may go two ways:

 

1. Partial strike down = FOID continues to exist, but ONLY as a permit to purchase and NOT a requisite for mere possession

 

2. Full strike down = no more FOID

 

In the case of the second scenario, many problems would arise (can't list them here though)

What is your single, worst case scenario, if a "Full strike down" happens?

 

Unfortunately, I think it falls under the advise we get to not discuss specifics of things of this nature openly on the board.

Perhaps it would suffice to say that everything "gun and ammunition" in Illinois is woven through the FOID laws so CCL, purchase, possession, records management etc would all need to be re-worked. Our current legislature would be all too happy to re-work FOID restrictions and fee schedules into something else that just barely passes muster with the court and further screws the law abiding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...re-work FOID restrictions and fee schedules into something else that just barely passes muster with the court and further screws the law abiding.

 

From the bleachers cheering you all on, I would agree with this assessment, sad as it is. The list is long of state cases that basically surveyed what they thought the peasants would tolerate, the way another pending case in another jurisdiction was likely to go, and then did some revision that rendered the pending case moot. While it's wending its way I'd be reluctant to start doing too much public dissection, tempting as it is. FOID is the right answer. Anything less than FOID they'd regard as a win because we all know it's not about rational thought processes.

Y'all are on my prayer list though... :)

Edited by Badger52
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it, this case may go two ways:

 

1. Partial strike down = FOID continues to exist, but ONLY as a permit to purchase and NOT a requisite for mere possession

 

2. Full strike down = no more FOID

 

In the case of the second scenario, many problems would arise (can't list them here though)

 

Yes, many problems. Like we operate like the other 49 states.

 

Seriously. The FOID was developed as a racist/classist means to keep minorities and the poor from getting access to firearms. It has always been an infringement, and it is completely unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The way I see it, this case may go two ways:

 

1. Partial strike down = FOID continues to exist, but ONLY as a permit to purchase and NOT a requisite for mere possession

 

2. Full strike down = no more FOID

 

In the case of the second scenario, many problems would arise (can't list them here though)

 

Yes, many problems. Like we operate like the other 49 states.

 

Seriously. The FOID was developed as a racist/classist means to keep minorities and the poor from getting access to firearms. It has always been an infringement, and it is completely unnecessary.

 

It's Illinois, they would rush to pass a replacement, jjust as onerous and infringing, if not more so, with a LOT more bad language issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the FOID got tossed our over lords would replace it with the fix the FOID bill. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

If the FOID gets tossed as an infringment upon the 2nd because it's a fee and license to exercise a right, I have no doubt the state will play games but doing the above is basically flat out contempt at that point.

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Fix The FOID" is even more unconstitutional. Yep our legislators have to one-up one another. "I'm gonna introduce something MORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL! HA!" Apply logic here. If the current one is unconstitutional then "Fix The FOID" can't even withstand rational basis.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The way I see it, this case may go two ways:

 

1. Partial strike down = FOID continues to exist, but ONLY as a permit to purchase and NOT a requisite for mere possession

 

2. Full strike down = no more FOID

 

In the case of the second scenario, many problems would arise (can't list them here though)

 

Yes, many problems. Like we operate like the other 49 states.

 

Seriously. The FOID was developed as a racist/classist means to keep minorities and the poor from getting access to firearms. It has always been an infringement, and it is completely unnecessary.

 

"Behind current gun control efforts often lurks the remnant of an old American prejudice, that the lower classes and minorities are not to be trusted with firearms. The bias originated in the post-antebellum South for political reasons and may have changed its form, but it still exists. Today the thought remains: if you let the poor, and especially the black poor, have guns, they will commit crimes with them. Even noted anti-gun activists have admitted this. In his book The Saturday Night Special, anti-gun journalist Robert Sherrill frankly admitted that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was "passed not to control guns but to control Blacks." [55] Barry Bruce-Briggs, in The Public Interest, stated that "it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the 'Saturday Night Special' is emphasized because it is cheap and it is being sold to a particular class of people. The name is sufficient evidence. The reference is to 'Niggertown Saturday Night.'

There used to be a guy in Oak Brook who had a website dedicated to this. The one thing that I remember well is one of the Nuremberg judges, Thomas J. Dodd helped write the GCA of 1968. He had a copy of the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law. http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm

This a long read but is very pertinent to what is going on right now in Illinois.

 

 

 

The link doesn't lead to anything. Can you repost the correct link?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The link doesn't lead to anything. Can you repost the correct link?

 

 

You can copy and paste the text not the link, or remove the %20%A0 in the hyperlink there is a hidden space in the url text (not visible) that the forum doesn't like.

 

This link should work, I cleaned the extra character(s) at the end

 

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As noted a few pages up, the Illinois Supreme Court is not scheduled to hear oral arguments again until Sept. 9, 2019. If the Court decides to wait on the US Supreme Court NY case, the Brown case may not be heard until 2020 and the Illinois Court may call for additional briefing after any NY decision. You can see the Court's argument schedule at page two here: http://www.illinoisc...ay/05-19_DB.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*cough* AHEM *cough*

 

*cough* Nonresident military spouse that lived in Illinois *cough*

 

*cough* couldn't purchase ammo at Walmart/LGS for guns in home, couldn't purchase a long gun in Illinois, couldn't rent guns at shooting range, all due to inability to obtain FOID Card. *cough*

 

*cough* brought many guns to Illinois that were kept in home, but it was ok under the FOID Card Act. *cough*

 

*cough* Amicus??? *cough*

 

Search forum archives dated 7/2012-7/2015 for post history regarding this. Iirc, I tried discussing this topic about 5 years ago. Military spouses who maintain residency in their home state can't obtain FOID Cards. Active duty military, regardless of state residency, have the option to obtain a FOID Card (not a requirement). Should the service member be deployed those guns are staying in the home while the service member is away.

 

To be fair, I haven't read any of the court filings. Just throwing this stuff out there.

 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

 

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...