Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
291 replies to this topic

#1 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,427 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 21 March 2019 - 10:52 AM

This is a case in my own circuit court that we have been monitoring for the past year. The court ruled the FOID Act unconstitutional in regards to the licensing and taxing requirement to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition in your own home. The IL Attorney General has appealed the case to the IL Supreme Court.

 

Cliff notes: Lady with a clean record, in possession of a single shot, bolt action rifle .22 in the home for personal protection. No FOID but otherwise eligible for a FOID.  Judge ruled requiring a license and charging a fee/tax  to exercise a Constitutional right in the home unconstitutional.

 

David Sigale with the Second Amendment Foundation will be representing Ms. Brown in her appeal to the IL Supreme Court appeal.

 

 

Attached File  Brown 2017CM60-ORDER-2_14_2018.pdf   64.36KB   4180 downloads

 

 

Attached File  Brown 2017CM60-ORDER-10_16_2018.pdf   64.15KB   2417 downloads

 

 

Brown Legal Fund 225.jpg

 

Brown Legal Fund $225.00


Edited by Molly B., 15 April 2019 - 04:31 PM.

"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

#2 JoeM

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts
  • Joined: 05-December 12

Posted 21 March 2019 - 10:55 AM

Nice
Never pet a burning dog!

#3 Sweeper13

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,208 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 12

Posted 21 March 2019 - 10:56 AM

Very nice.

#4 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,717 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 21 March 2019 - 11:03 AM

Very nice. My only concern is the language "in the home".

Is that written in the courts written opinion.

I would be happy to see it as unconstitutional period.

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


#5 Bird76Mojo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,054 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 10

Posted 21 March 2019 - 11:12 AM

With that judges opinion, Illinois is doubling down on fees/taxes outside the home by requiring both a FOID AND a CCL.. Very interesting.


Edited by Bird76Mojo, 21 March 2019 - 11:13 AM.

Constitutional Carry - Proponent
Open Carry - Proponent
Exercise your rights - Engage in civil disobedience against unconstitutional laws - IGNORE THE F.O.I.D.


#6 357

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,802 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 21 March 2019 - 11:15 AM

That means FOID and all licenses and fees are Unconstitutional.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#7 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,427 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 21 March 2019 - 11:22 AM

Very nice. My only concern is the language "in the home".

Is that written in the courts written opinion.

I would be happy to see it as unconstitutional period.

 

 

We would be too but remember, McDonald vs Chicago had to remove the ban in in the home before we could get rid of the ban outside the home.


"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

#8 2smartby1/2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 18

Posted 21 March 2019 - 11:24 AM

Well done...



#9 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,574 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 21 March 2019 - 11:26 AM

Wow, just wow.  Excellent news!



#10 bmyers

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,124 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 21 March 2019 - 11:34 AM

Wow, this is some of the best news I have heard lately.


Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA

ISRA Member


#11 Vodoun da Vinci

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 14

Posted 21 March 2019 - 11:37 AM

Kudos to all for keeping this ball rolling.....and thank you. 

 

VooDoo



#12 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,717 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 21 March 2019 - 11:38 AM

Very nice. My only concern is the language "in the home".
Is that written in the courts written opinion.
I would be happy to see it as unconstitutional period.

 
 
We would be too but remember, McDonald vs Chicago had to remove the ban in in the home before we could get rid of the ban outside the home.
I hope that is the direction we go. I would like to see the FOID card to be considered "Facially Unconstitutional" same as the Webb case was ruled on today.

That ruling is AWESOME.

Edited by THE KING, 21 March 2019 - 11:39 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


#13 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,328 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 21 March 2019 - 11:54 AM

This is yuge.

#14 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,328 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 21 March 2019 - 11:57 AM

Why are those docs dates from 2018?

#15 FieldGL

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,018 posts
  • Joined: 25-January 16

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:06 PM

Why are those docs dates from 2018?

 

I just noticed that. 

 

Either way, good news. Hope we can continue the progress. 



#16 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 21,023 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:09 PM

Why are those docs dates from 2018?


As Molly B said, it's been on the radar for a year.

#17 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,328 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:10 PM

Why are those docs dates from 2018?

As Molly B said, it's been on the radar for a year.

Why is she posting about it now?

#18 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 21,023 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:13 PM

Why is she posting about it now?


Because of the appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.

#19 Jeffrey

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,748 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 08

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:13 PM

Great news.  What other Constitutionally protected right do you have to pass a test and pay for?


...and justice for all

YOUR WALLET, the only place Democrats care to drill

#20 springfield shooter

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 299 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 16

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:17 PM

 

Very nice. My only concern is the language "in the home".

Is that written in the courts written opinion.

I would be happy to see it as unconstitutional period.

 

 

We would be too but remember, McDonald vs Chicago had to remove the ban in in the home before we could get rid of the ban outside the home.

 

 

Common sense (I know...I know...) dictates that one would have to be able to transport the firearm and ammunition TO the home. If it's legal IN the home without a license, it has to be legal getting it TO the home without a license.


"I can't spare this man. He fights."  Abraham Lincoln


#21 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,717 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:24 PM

Very nice. My only concern is the language "in the home".
Is that written in the courts written opinion.
I would be happy to see it as unconstitutional period.

 
 
We would be too but remember, McDonald vs Chicago had to remove the ban in in the home before we could get rid of the ban outside the home.
 
Common sense (I know...I know...) dictates that one would have to be able to transport the firearm and ammunition TO the home. If it's legal IN the home without a license, it has to be legal getting it TO the home without a license.

I like the way you think. I haven't thought about it from that perspective, if you look at it from a much broader perspective based on all the FOID requirements maybe the whole FOID card issue can be found unconstitutional. I like it.

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


#22 Bubbacs

    #Fear The Clown

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,246 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 14

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:31 PM

Not direct on topic guys n gals!

Be sure to become a supporting member here at IC
MollyB, Mauserme and others need all our help they can get.
Lawyers cost, time costs.
The two posts today by MollyB show that we are or can be moving in the correct direction.

11,000 members here, let’s give a hand!

#23 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,427 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:36 PM

 

 

Why are those docs dates from 2018?

As Molly B said, it's been on the radar for a year.
Why is she posting about it now?
 
 
 
Because there were motions to reconsider, waiting for the court to rule on motions to reconsider, etc.  The case could have died on the vine, so to speak. It's only in the appeal process or decisions not to appeal that we make or end progress in a case.  By the judge denying motions to dismiss, the case grew legs and now it is on the way to the IL Supreme 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

#24 RS1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Joined: 15-January 19

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:48 PM

This is good news. Great work!

If $10 for a FOID is an onerous tax, what about the $25/firearm and $0.05/round in Cook County?


Also, does the fact that it was a single shot bolt action .22 matter in this decision? Seems like the perfect case.

#25 DomG

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,269 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 14

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:51 PM

$But what about the children?$
"Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges." - Tacitus
The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." -Tacitus

IL CCL
AZ CWP
VFW Life Member
USAF Retired
NRA Life Member
ISRA
GOA

#26 tricolor

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 516 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 18

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:54 PM

Seems like a wonderful fact pattern to push!  Great news.



#27 Kosta

  • Members
  • 41 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 19

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:57 PM

Very good news

#28 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,143 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:58 PM

Constitutional protected rights don't end at your doorway threshold, so if even if the wording of a final ruling is narrow it should be easy to expand upon.  And even in the interm a ruling that no FOID is needed to own/possses guns in your residence is a HUGE step forward in this state.


Edited by Flynn, 21 March 2019 - 12:58 PM.

Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#29 2smartby1/2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 18

Posted 21 March 2019 - 01:20 PM

 

 

Very nice. My only concern is the language "in the home".

Is that written in the courts written opinion.

I would be happy to see it as unconstitutional period.

 

 

We would be too but remember, McDonald vs Chicago had to remove the ban in in the home before we could get rid of the ban outside the home.

 

 

Common sense (I know...I know...) dictates that one would have to be able to transport the firearm and ammunition TO the home. If it's legal IN the home without a license, it has to be legal getting it TO the home without a license.

 

Good point!   Unless, they come back and say something silly like.....it only applies to weapons and ammo created within the home...    



#30 jagt48

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,517 posts
  • Joined: 08-September 11

Posted 21 March 2019 - 01:29 PM

[quote name="2smartby1/2" post="1203614" timestamp="1553196005"][quote name="springfield shooter" post="1203578" timestamp="1553192232"]
[quote name="Molly B." post="1203543" timestamp="1553188969"]
[quote name="THE KING" post="1203535" timestamp="1553187790"]
Very nice. My only concern is the language "in the home".
Is that written in the courts written opinion.
I would be happy to see it as unconstitutional period.
[/quote]
 
 
We would be too but remember, McDonald vs Chicago had to remove the ban in in the home before we could get rid of the ban outside the home.
[/quote]
 
Common sense (I know...I know...) dictates that one would have to be able to transport the firearm and ammunition TO the home. If it's legal IN the home without a license, it has to be legal getting it TO the home without a license.
[/quote]
Good point!   Unless, they come back and say something silly like.....it only applies to weapons and ammo created within the home...
[/quote]

Check and check...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users