Jump to content

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


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Or tried as an adult for crimes.

Or go to war and die for your country.

 

Old enough to give your life for freedom but not old enough to practice those freedoms, something wrong with that picture

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Or tried as an adult for crimes.

Or go to war and die for your country.

 

Old enough to give your life for freedom but not old enough to practice those freedoms, something wrong with that picture

Here's the hook that the other cases have used.

 

"Moreover, as with felons and the mentally ill, categorically restricting the presumptive Second Amendment rights of 18–to–20–year–olds does not violate the central concern of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment, at its core, protects “law-abiding, responsible” citizens." Nat'l Rifle a**'n of Am., Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives, 700 F.3d 185, 206 (5th Cir. 2012).

 

The courts say the 2A protects law-abiding, responsible citizens. And then they say that the government is free to conclude that kids under 21 are not responsible. I strongly disagree with the courts' conclusions and reasoning, but I'm just trying to explain the rationale that we are up against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really wanna see what the state has to say about the whole it's unconstitutional to require parental consent for a 17 yr old to get an abortion but (according to the state) it's not just constitutional but it's a matter of public safety to require 18-20 yr olds to get parental consent to own a long gun or anything otherwise legal for an 18, 19, or 20 yr old to possess.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really wanna see what the state has to say about the whole it's unconstitutional to require parental consent for a 17 yr old to get an abortion but (according to the state) it's not just constitutional but it's a matter of public safety to require 18-20 yr olds to get parental consent to own a long gun or anything otherwise legal for an 18, 19, or 20 yr old to possess.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

The argument will be something along the lines of the legislature being able to analyze each particular activity and determining the appropriate age of responsibility for each such activity. So, Illinois can decide that 21 is the age when a person is responsible enought to drink, 18 is when a person is responsible enough to enter into contracts, 17 is when a person is responsible enough to consent to sex, etc. The court will never hold that there has to be a uniform age across the board for all types of activities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really wanna see what the state has to say about the whole it's unconstitutional to require parental consent for a 17 yr old to get an abortion but (according to the state) it's not just constitutional but it's a matter of public safety to require 18-20 yr olds to get parental consent to own a long gun or anything otherwise legal for an 18, 19, or 20 yr old to possess.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

When I heard the abortion ruling on the radio this morning I thought the exact same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really wanna see what the state has to say about the whole it's unconstitutional to require parental consent for a 17 yr old to get an abortion but (according to the state) it's not just constitutional but it's a matter of public safety to require 18-20 yr olds to get parental consent to own a long gun or anything otherwise legal for an 18, 19, or 20 yr old to possess.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

The argument will be something along the lines of the legislature being able to analyze each particular activity and determining the appropriate age of responsibility for each such activity. So, Illinois can decide that 21 is the age when a person is responsible enought to drink, 18 is when a person is responsible enough to enter into contracts, 17 is when a person is responsible enough to consent to sex, etc. The court will never hold that there has to be a uniform age across the board for all types of activities.

 

 

And that is where they went wrong. When people start differentiating what is "appropriate," at a certain age (or some other arbitrary requirement) someone always gets the worse end of it. This does nothing but prove that some people or more equal than others. Either you have a right or you don't. Recall that it used to be that women didn't have the right to vote. That was decided by legislation. Does that mean it was OK? It was also decided at one time that black people shouldn't have the same rights as whites. Was that OK?

 

The bottom line is that the role of government isn't to legislate morality, because "moral" means different things to different people. The role of government is to ensure that property rights are respected by contract, just like you mentioned. People freely enter into a contract, and the government is there as an independent third party to ensure that each party respects the terms of said contract. They are not there to make up standards and rules for what they *think* the first two parties should do before even entering into a contract. That is exactly how we got into this mess we have right now.

 

I can't tell if you are just stating what you think is correct and what the court should do, or if you are simply stating what the court will likely do based on past rulings, so this rant is a general argument and not directed at you. I just get frustrated when some people don't apply the same standards across the board to make a decision. Instead, they end up allowing personal feelings and opinions to make draw their conclusions instead of using only cold, hard facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really wanna see what the state has to say about the whole it's unconstitutional to require parental consent for a 17 yr old to get an abortion but (according to the state) it's not just constitutional but it's a matter of public safety to require 18-20 yr olds to get parental consent to own a long gun or anything otherwise legal for an 18, 19, or 20 yr old to possess.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

The argument will be something along the lines of the legislature being able to analyze each particular activity and determining the appropriate age of responsibility for each such activity. So, Illinois can decide that 21 is the age when a person is responsible enought to drink, 18 is when a person is responsible enough to enter into contracts, 17 is when a person is responsible enough to consent to sex, etc. The court will never hold that there has to be a uniform age across the board for all types of activities.

 

 

And that is where they went wrong. When people start differentiating what is "appropriate," at a certain age (or some other arbitrary requirement) someone always gets the worse end of it. This does nothing but prove that some people or more equal than others. Either you have a right or you don't. Recall that it used to be that women didn't have the right to vote. That was decided by legislation. Does that mean it was OK? It was also decided at one time that black people shouldn't have the same rights as whites. Was that OK?

 

The bottom line is that the role of government isn't to legislate morality, because "moral" means different things to different people. The role of government is to ensure that property rights are respected by contract, just like you mentioned. People freely enter into a contract, and the government is there as an independent third party to ensure that each party respects the terms of said contract. They are not there to make up standards and rules for what they *think* the first two parties should do before even entering into a contract. That is exactly how we got into this mess we have right now.

 

I can't tell if you are just stating what you think is correct and what the court should do, or if you are simply stating what the court will likely do based on past rulings, so this rant is a general argument and not directed at you. I just get frustrated when some people don't apply the same standards across the board to make a decision. Instead, they end up allowing personal feelings and opinions to make draw their conclusions instead of using only cold, hard facts.

My previous post was what I think the State will argue. My personal opinion is that there should be no FOID card at all, much less any age restriction on it. My legal opinion is that a total ban on firearm ownership for 18-20 year olds is inconsistent with current law. My legal prediction of what will happen in this case is that I am skeptical of the judge coming to the correct conclusion (because, seriously, when was the last time you ever saw a district court judge strike down a firearm law) but in this case I would put the chance of success at the trial court level at around 50/50. If there's an unfavorable ruling at the district court level, I think there is a strong possibility that the 7th Circuit overrules (around 75%).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and remember, Judge Stiehl is presiding over this case. I just have a hard time buying the intermediate scrutiny argument for long guns for those in the age of majority (blanket term) but not for abortions, assuming SCOTUS hadn't ruled on it. You don't need parental consent to get an abortion if you're 17. A procedure which could go horribly wrong if the doctor isn't 100% aware of your medical history and how many 17 year old girls, especially combined with the whole "pregnant at 17" hysteria, are aware of their medical history (adverse reactions to medications etc) or are even willing to release their chart to the doctor performing the abortion. I'd venture to guess it's a VERY low percentage. But then require parental consent to get a FOID card to purchase a long gun....which could be used in a crime but how many times has a shotgun or rifle registered to a FOID card holdrr been used in a clear cut criminal manner by said card holder.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My previous post was what I think the State will argue. My personal opinion is that there should be no FOID card at all, much less any age restriction on it. My legal opinion is that a total ban on firearm ownership for 18-20 year olds is inconsistent with current law. My legal prediction of what will happen in this case is that I am skeptical of the judge coming to the correct conclusion (because, seriously, when was the last time you ever saw a district court judge strike down a firearm law) but in this case I would put the chance of success at the trial court level at around 50/50. If there's an unfavorable ruling at the district court level, I think there is a strong possibility that the 7th Circuit overrules (around 75%).

 

Gotcha. After re-reading your original post and my response, I realized that I sounded like I was attacking you unnecessarily.

 

As to your assessment of what will probably happen, I agree just based on the history of how things have played out in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Here's Horsley's motion for summary judgment. Her attorney (Maag) attached three exhibits. One is a FOID app, second one is an affidavit filed by Horsley stating that the only impediment to her getting a FOID is a parental/guardian signature, and the third is the Mosley ruling hehe.

 

Motion.For.Summary.Judgment.DE10.pdf

 

Unfortunately, about 8 days later Stiehl did this....doesn't seem to care about it and just set a schedule for discovery with a trial in June 2014.

 

CJRA TRACK B assigned: A Final Pretrial Conference is set for 6/9/2014 at 11:30 AM in the East St. Louis Courthouse before Judge William D. Stiehl. Presumptive Trial Month is July 2014. (car) (Entered: 07/24/2013)

 

Followed by MORE case management yet not addressing the Motion

 

NOTICE of Scheduling and Discovery Conference: Scheduling/Discovery Conference set for 8/30/2013 3:30 PM via Telephone Conference before Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams. (amv) (Entered: 08/01/2013)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Plaintiff would prefer a double barrel shotgun, as recently suggested by our Vice-President, at the end of the day, nearly any kind of firearm in common use will do. But the State of Illinois, a state not known for its liberal firearms laws or zealous defense of Second Amendment rights, says no, without parental consent and parental indemnification of Plaintiff.

 

:laugh: :clap: :clap: :clap: :poke: :rofl: :rofl:

 

OMG, I love it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the age of 18, you become an adult whether you are capable or not. You may legally sign contracts, buy cigarettes, join the military (by force in the old days), get married...

 

In the brief it says something about 21 being the age of majority (“The courts found that at the Founding and in the mid-Nineteenth Century, legislatures, courts, and commentators recognized the validity of firearms restrictions as to categories of individuals, including persons under the age of 21, noting that such individuals were considered ‘minors’ at the time,” the office states in its motion.) from our country's founding through the mid 19th century (1850ish?)... I soooo don't think so.

 

Good golly... This young woman should be issued a FOID card if she otherwise qualifies.

 

The age of 21 was selected in the GCA'68 because that was the voting age at the time.

 

When they lowered the voting age several years later the handgun age was "forgotten".

 

I would counter that if someone under the age of 21 cannot obtain an FOID on their own that any law with an age limit of 18 - smokes, voting, driving, contracts and marriage - be immediately struck from the books as well.

 

After all, if you're going to deny one right for an arbitrary reason, might as well deny them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a beautiful suit. I especially liked the finger raised towards Biden.

 

I always felt the parental sign-off for 18+ was wrong. I think they are wrong regarding historical analysis. The original militia act (and today's) placed persons from age 17 up in the militia.

Don't forget article 12 of the 4th Constitution of the state of Illinois ratified in 1970.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one is fun. The state just filed a motion to stay the motion for summary judgment. Ratz is non compos mentis. He cites a bunch of cases that are OLD and aren't even within the Circuit (except the bankruptcy court which is ludicrous). One case is from Illinois Bankruptcy Court. Federal District Court in MA, from 1989. Fed District Court in Nebraska, 1951 (gee that only happened 52 years ago). District Court for the District of Columbia, 1981. Eastern District of Virginia, 2005.

 

Here's some rich stuff.

 

"13. Upon returning to the office on August 8, 2013, the undersigned has been preparing for trial in Kinney v. Anglin, 10-cv-2238 (USDC-CDIL) (since vacated and

awaiting rescheduling), preparing objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations on cross-motions for summary judgment in Mordi v. Zeigler, 11-cv-193

(USDC-SDIL), preparing a response brief in administrative review in Bee-J Amusements v. Illinois Gaming Bd., 12-MR-120 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Tazewell County) (ongoing), and preparing a response to a motion for summary judgment in Shehadeh v. DHS, 13-MR-1 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Christian County) (ongoing)."

 

"14. Additionally, the undersigned will be engaged in extensive preparation in the coming weeks for a three-day hearing before the Civil Service Commission set for September 10–12, 2013, in addition to balancing the demands of his caseload.

 

15. Therefore, should the Court determine that a stay is not warranted, Defendant requests, in the alternative, a 28-day extension, up to and including September 26, 2013, in which to respond to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment."

 

So, more or less, Ratz is saying "Look, your Honor, I'm just really busy so you need to stay Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment until I feel like dealing with it because I'm the only attorney who can possibly deal with this. It's not like the Illinois AG has other lawyers on staff."

 

Motion.to.Stay.Motion.for.Summary.Judgment.DE13.pdf

 

Affidavit of Jessica Trame

 

Trame.Affidavit.Exhibit.A.DE13.1.pdf

 

I can't copy and paste the stuff from pg 2 of her affidavit, but she basically says that she (defendant) is unable to adequately respond to the motion for summary judgment because the state needs to conduct discovery including deposing Horsley. What a crock of...eh...horse manure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How in the world do you need to conduct discovery and depose the plaintiff before responding to the motion for summary judgment? IIRC, the facts in this case are uncontested, and it's matter of applying the law. (IANAL)

 

It's called a "stall tactic". The current State of Illinois government is trying to play a shell game with out rights, plain and simple.

 

The courts are getting tired of it, well the appellate courts are anyway. And our politicians are so arrogant that they don't think anyone is on to their games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maag can seek certification for an interlocutory appeal with CA7 if Stiehl grants the motion but he'd have to get it from Stiehl. That's really about all he can do short of attempting to appeal the interlocutory order under the collateral order doctrine which is what federal courts use to determine if an interlocutory is appealable. It's a three-prong test. One, the outcome of the case must be conclusively determined by the order. Two, the appealable matter must be collateral to the merits of the case. The third prong requires the matter to be effectively unreviewable upon final judgment. The first prong is iffy, second and third I'd say yes but it's a moot point to discuss the second and third if the order does not satisfy the first prong. The granting of the motion to stay would be collateral to the merits of the case because "I have a huge caseload, I can't handle this case and I need to depose Ms. Horsley and conducy discovery prior to filing a response" is not only a separate issue but is also not even close to being a valid argument as to why Ratz cannot respond to a motion for summary judgment. That argument flies in the face of the purpose of a summary judgment. The third prong is satisfied as Stiehl granting that stay would be non-appealable when the case is ruled on and it is closed, res judicata.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maag can seek certification for an interlocutory appeal with CA7 if Stiehl grants the motion but he'd have to get it from Stiehl. That's really about all he can do short of attempting to appeal the interlocutory order under the collateral order doctrine which is what federal courts use to determine if an interlocutory is appealable. It's a three-prong test. One, the outcome of the case must be conclusively determined by the order. Two, the appealable matter must be collateral to the merits of the case. The third prong requires the matter to be effectively unreviewable upon final judgment. The first prong is iffy, second and third I'd say yes but it's a moot point to discuss the second and third if the order does not satisfy the first prong. The granting of the motion to stay would be collateral to the merits of the case because "I have a huge caseload, I can't handle this case and I need to depose Ms. Horsley and conducy discovery prior to filing a response" is not only a separate issue but is also not even close to being a valid argument as to why Ratz cannot respond to a motion for summary judgment. That argument flies in the face of the purpose of a summary judgment. The third prong is satisfied as Stiehl granting that stay would be non-appealable when the case is ruled on and it is closed, res judicata.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Hmmm methinks I am in the wrong thread,as all I speak is "hick-english". :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm methinks I am in the wrong thread,as all I speak is "hick-english". :cry:

 

Ha well interlocutory order is any order issued by a judge during the middle of a case. Motion granted, denied, etc. 99.9999% of the time they're non-appealable, even if judgment is rendered and the case is closed. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal of an interlocutory order but generally are frowned upon by appellate courts unless the order in question will "finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated." (Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.). In other words, it's an appeal of an order that doesn't directly effect the outcome of the case, the order must address an issue separate from the merits of the case itself (like Stiehl granting a stay of Plaintiff's motion), and must be non-appealable even when the case is ruled on and considered closed because the order in question is not directly related to the merits of the case.

 

I made a boo boo, the first prong could be met as the order would address a separable issue that, well, basically would screw Horsley out of exercising her right to keep and bear arms because Assistant AG Ratz is violating the Code of Professional Conduct. His caseload is too large to handle drafting a response to the motion? That's a huge no no for attorneys, and he put it in writing. It's not like they can't sub him for another Assistant AG, especially at this stage of the proceedings. And for Ratz, much less the non-lawyer defendant Trame to say that Horsley must be deposed first? Really? Since when did you need to depose someone and issue Rule 45 subpoenas to figure out...what exactly? What can they possihly glean from depos and subpoenas that you can't from a background check. They just wanna rack up her legal expenses and make her give up. That's it.

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skinny, I need to buy you a cold one for the kickass content you seem to throw down at will. Seriously, thank you.

 

Sounds good to me haha. Planning on attending the Shepard orals? I'm 50/50 on that right now but I might say screw it and make a 4 day weekend out of it. They'll be...very interesting to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skinny, I need to buy you a cold one for the kickass content you seem to throw down at will. Seriously, thank you.

 

Sounds good to me haha. Planning on attending the Shepard orals? I'm 50/50 on that right now but I might say screw it and make a 4 day weekend out of it. They'll be...very interesting to say the least.

Date again? I would consider going

 

I've already put in my request for the day off. Skinnyb82, the offer still stands. And I (we) will be passing through DeKalb on our way there!

 

-- Frank

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...