Jump to content

Madigan’s office seeks dismissal of teen’s suit over FOID Card Act


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

This should be a slam dunk. Their denial is entirely based on the lack of a signature of parent or legal guardian, however someone who has reached age of majority has no such legal guardian, they are legally recognized as an adult. Illinois can't have it both ways, they either need to recognize legal adulthood and issue the FOID without permission from people who have no legal guardianship, or change the FOID act to deny FOIDs to everyone under 21 across the board. Or get rid of the idiotic FOID altogether.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If her attorney weren't a toxic tort litigator by trade, yeah. Unfortunately finding lawyers who are somewhat versed in firearms and con law down there is like finding a virgin at South Padre on spring break. Part of me wants to email him the Mosley opinion. His dad is a retired appellate court judge who ran for a seat on the IL Supreme Court in 2004 and got beat out by a guy whose campaign was allegedly financed by State Farm in exchange for him overturning a judgment entered against the company's auto insurance subsidiary. Well he won. And he got the judgment overturned. Now State Farm is being sued for civil RICO in the southern district. The judge in question also has some allegedly shady dealings with Philip Morris.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's citing the FOID Act's language as to why it's constitutional (that and a bunch of non-binding decisions in other circuits). A piece of legislation ruled unconstitutional twice over by a judge in Cook County, once because of this provision, makes the law constitutional. Ok that's some convoluted legal logic that only the AG's office could come up with. They'd probably say that McDonald conflicts with Heller too. I HOPE that Maag (her attorney) actually does his job and finds People v. Mosley since it's really not difficult.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's citing the FOID Act's language as to why it's constitutional (that and a bunch of non-binding decisions in other circuits). A piece of legislation ruled unconstitutional twice over by a judge in Cook County, once because of this provision, makes the law constitutional. Ok that's some convoluted legal logic that only the AG's office could come up with. They'd probably say that McDonald conflicts with Heller too. I HOPE that Maag (her attorney) actually does his job and finds People v. Mosley since it's really not difficult.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

Anyway you can "direct" them to it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if the AG was smart they would claim that since there is a procedure by which minors can be given their majority that since the process is available in the case of teenagers wanting foid cards they should just do that.

 

I don't know how far it would go but it would be a good misdirection ploy, if nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I have actually never read a court document that was informative, made sense and clearly laid out what was being said. Very interesting read and I sure hope this is handled the correct way, which is to allow all those of majority age (18 years old) who are eligible based on the other criteria, to successfully apply AND receive a FOID card without parental authorization. It's the right thing to do and I'm actually shocked that this has not been brought and changed before (maybe it has been denied previously).

 

You can carry a firearm for the United States government at 18 but Illinois says no unless mommy and daddy say yes (and they are eligible as well, or again, you cannot).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if the AG was smart they would claim that since there is a procedure by which minors can be given their majority that since the process is available in the case of teenagers wanting foid cards they should just do that.

 

I don't know how far it would go but it would be a good misdirection ploy, if nothing else.

that was struck down by the trial court in Mosely in cook county

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At 17, the United States Marine Corps handed me a full auto M16 and trained me to kill a commie for mommie! If that is good enough for the Marines, it is good enough for the state.

 

Correct but did you have to have parental consent to enlist in the USMC? If I remember correctly, you could not enlist on your own until you turned 18 (this included deferred enlistment - I was 17 when I signed the papers but was 18 when I went to basic training).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At 17, the United States Marine Corps handed me a full auto M16 and trained me to kill a commie for mommie! If that is good enough for the Marines, it is good enough for the state.

 

Correct but did you have to have parental consent to enlist in the USMC? If I remember correctly, you could not enlist on your own until you turned 18 (this included deferred enlistment - I was 17 when I signed the papers but was 18 when I went to basic training).

 

I had my parents sign the enlistment forms the day after i turned 17. I didn't turn 18 until after i completed basic and half of AIT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maag is correct, the statute does not even survive intermediate scrutiny. If strict scrutiny is applied, the statute is for sure turned on its head.

 

Addressing intermediate scrutiny,

 

"As far as the intermediate scrutiny suggested by Defendant, not a single one of the cases cited by Defendant to justify that level of scrutiny has anything whatsoever do to with either private possession of any kind firearm in the home (which is where the right is the absolute strongest), or a long gun like a rifle or shotgun. Not one of them. They also have nothing to do with requiring parental consent, like in this case and Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1976)."

 

Strict scrutiny....

 

"To survive strict scrutiny, the statute 'must be narrowly tailored to promote a compelling Government interest.' United States v. Playboy Entm't. Group, 529 U.S. 803, 813, (2000) ... Put another way, a statute is not narrowly tailored if 'a less restrictive alternative would serve the Government's purpose.' See Playboy, 529 U.S. at 813, 120 S.Ct. 1878."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
At 17, the United States Marine Corps handed me a full auto M16 and trained me to kill a commie for mommie! If that is good enough for the Marines, it is good enough for the state.

 

Correct but did you have to have parental consent to enlist in the USMC? If I remember correctly, you could not enlist on your own until you turned 18 (this included deferred enlistment - I was 17 when I signed the papers but was 18 when I went to basic training).

 

Maybe, but you can sign up at 18 WITHOUT any consent. the argument here is perfect actually. Because at 17 you are still "not an adult" and must get a parents signature to join the military... but not at 18. At 18 you can join the military, buy a car, rent a house, buy a house (if you have the means), get loans, get credit cards, etc... No parent's signature needed.

 

If you can vote. You should be able to by a gun. Not just a long gun, but a handgun also. It isnt like at 21 they say you can buy beer, but not vodka. Or at 18 you can vote in local elections but not national/federal do they?

 

This "escalation" stuff is simply silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

 

If you can vote. You should be able to by a gun.

 

Didn't Illinois just pass something where you can now vote at 17?

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

I thought all you need to vote in Illinois was a grave plot, didn't know you had to be a certain age. Maybe that is just in Chicago where grave plot registration is allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get a double barreled shot gun. LOL I cracked up when I read that was included in the suit. LOL.

 

 

I didn't even think about getting a foid until I was 21, not that I was concerned with the rules, just that was about the time I decided I wanted to be a responsible law abiding gun owner. I grew up in Chicago, I knew plenty of KIDS who had guns. GASP! What you mean, they broke the law and didn't have a FOID?! What you mean the FOID won't stop criminals from owning guns?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plaintiff's case here is stronger than the other 18,19,20-year-old lawsuits challenging the FFL handgun sale ban to under 21 year old's, which all lost. In those cases, the plaintiffs could still purchase a handgun from a private seller and could still generally own and possess firearms. The only gun lawsuits that ever seem to succeed are the ones challenging a total, outright ban. Plaintiff here is totally, and completely, banned from possessing any and all firearms.

 

The biggest hurdle to overcome though, is that in the other under-21 cases, the courts relied on the historical basis of 21 being the age of majority. So, the simple reasoning by these courts is that minors can be prevented from possessing guns and the government is free to treat anyone under 21 as a minor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plaintiff's case here is stronger than the other 18,19,20-year-old lawsuits challenging the FFL handgun sale ban to under 21 year old's, which all lost. In those cases, the plaintiffs could still purchase a handgun from a private seller and could still generally own and possess firearms. The only gun lawsuits that ever seem to succeed are the ones challenging a total, outright ban. Plaintiff here is totally, and completely, banned from possessing any and all firearms.

 

The biggest hurdle to overcome though, is that in the other under-21 cases, the courts relied on the historical basis of 21 being the age of majority. So, the simple reasoning by these courts is that minors can be prevented from possessing guns and the government is free to treat anyone under 21 as a minor.

the big difference here is the plaintiff isnt wanting a handgun shes wanting a shotgun or rifle which an 18 yr old can purchase with a foid... in the other states your "parents signature" is not required after you turn 18 while illinois requires it. when your a legal adult and cannot have a legal guardian at 18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the big difference here is the plaintiff isnt wanting a handgun shes wanting a shotgun or rifle which an 18 yr old can purchase with a foid... in the other states your "parents signature" is not required after you turn 18 while illinois requires it. when your a legal adult and cannot have a legal guardian at 18

Yeah, I understand the big differences in this case (and that's why I said her case is stronger than the previous ones). But, the big picture reasoning applied in the other cases don't really depend on any of the differences you highlighted. Think of it this way: Can Illinois prohibit a 4-year old from possessing guns? Probably yes, because courts would say that a 4-year old is a minor and irresponsible so they can be prohibited from possessing guns. Once you establish that base, it simply becomes a matter of determining where the cut-off point is for minors. The other cases held that 21 is an appropriate cut-off point for minors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the big difference here is the plaintiff isnt wanting a handgun shes wanting a shotgun or rifle which an 18 yr old can purchase with a foid... in the other states your "parents signature" is not required after you turn 18 while illinois requires it. when your a legal adult and cannot have a legal guardian at 18

Yeah, I understand the big differences in this case (and that's why I said her case is stronger than the previous ones). But, the big picture reasoning applied in the other cases don't really depend on any of the differences you highlighted. Think of it this way: Can Illinois prohibit a 4-year old from possessing guns? Probably yes, because courts would say that a 4-year old is a minor and irresponsible so they can be prohibited from possessing guns. Once you establish that base, it simply becomes a matter of determining where the cut-off point is for minors. The other cases held that 21 is an appropriate cut-off point for minors.

 

It's hard to say 21 is appropriate when you can enter into legal contracts at age 18.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...