Posted 15 December 2015 - 11:18 AM
CA7 just published an opinion in Horsley v. Trame, even though the case had been decided months ago (AFAIK). Judge Williams writing for the panel, using some messed up reasoning, assumes the Director of ISP actually processes appeals. That was the ISP defense. "Well, she can appeal...." They just don't say that appeals aren't processed. Horsley's lawyer never bothered to even ask how many appeals are processed, how long the average appeal takes in a case such as this from filing it to resolution, how many Director approvals and denials. But he didn't so the court must assume that the FOID Card Act, ISP do have a safety valve for relief for 18-20 yr olds without a parental signature when, in reality, the remedy is "Wait until you're 21." Shame how this case could have gone completely differently had that evidence been available. Instead, an asinine precedent has been set.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
C&R License Holder