407 replies to this topic

[gunuser17]

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

[chemical operator1]

Thanks for this update. I couldn't find anything other than the April deadline with that final extension.

[domin8]

*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

[borgranta]

The only way it would be legal for ILLINOS to allow the FOID to exist after a court ruling declaring it unconstitutional would be to revise FOID law and all references of FOID in law to make it an optional card that would offer a benefit of no mandatory waiting period upon instant background check approval and a maximum 3 day wait when background check is delayed.

Edited by borgranta, 02 July 2019 - 12:49 PM.

[Bitter Clinger]

But waiting periods and other delays are also unconstitutional.

[SiliconSorcerer]

But waiting periods and other delays are also unconstitutional.

 

Anything but cash (barter) and carry is unconstitutional. 

[Molly B.]

State’s Reply Brief is attached. 

 

 Appellant's Reply Brief.pdf   191.17KB   214 downloads

[Bird76Mojo]

I've never read a longer piece based on backwards, circular logic in all my life.

Just wow.



"But as amicus Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence demonstrated in its brief, “[t]he weight of empirical evidence shows that licensing laws like Illinois’ are likely to be highly effective at reducing gun homicides and suicides and at decreasing gun purchases by criminals.”


I would argue that since the FOID act was put in place, criminal violence using illegal firearms has only risen.




"In sum, if the Second Amendment allows prohibitions on gun possession and ownership by felons, minors, the mentally ill, and other presumptively risky people — which both this Court and the United States Supreme Court have held that it does"


...and that's where you're wrong bud. The 2nd Amendment allows no such thing. It's right there, clearly written. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE (ALL PEOPLE) TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (ALL ARMS) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Anything to the contrary is nothing more than a modern judges' opinion/ruling. Otherwise, the 2nd Amendment would've included the language pertaining to felons, mentally ill, etc..

Edited by Bird76Mojo, 31 July 2019 - 02:35 AM.

[domin8]

The FOID Act has only affected law abiding citizens. During the 3 years I lived in Illinois i was never able to purchase ammo or a long gun because I didn't have a FOID. As a nonresident military spouse I couldn't get a FOID. I've offered to help Illinois Carry in this matter, but got shut down. There's no interest in an amicus from somebody like me. Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[steveTA84]

The FOID Act has only affected law abiding citizens. During the 3 years I lived in Illinois i was never able to purchase ammo or a long gun because I didn't have a FOID. As a nonresident military spouse I couldn't get a FOID. I've offered to help Illinois Carry in this matter, but got shut down. There's no interest in an amicus from somebody like me.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So are you living here though (spouse stationed here)?

[Molly B.]

Brown hearing is the morning of 9/10 in Springfield.

[geo.ulrich]

damn, same day as my colonscopy hope the the state doesn't preform a second one for me that day

[billzfx4]

damn, same day as my colonscopy hope the the state doesn't preform a second one for me that day

 

At least your doctor will use some lube.

[PappaDock]

I've never read a longer piece based on backwards, circular logic in all my life. Just wow."But as amicus Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence demonstrated in its brief, “[t]he weight of empirical evidence shows that licensing laws like Illinois’ are likely to be highly effective at reducing gun homicides and suicides and at decreasing gun purchases by criminals.” I would argue that since the FOID act was put in place, criminal violence using illegal firearms has only risen."

What empirical evidence are they referring to?

[cls74]

From I presume Todd on IL Gun Lobby FB

 

 

Case 124100

 

http://www.illinoisc...ket/default.asp

[cls74]

[Molly B.]

Wish I could have been there!!

[Johnnybgood]

Anybody know what the tone of the judges was yet?

[Glock23]

I don't usually follow cases that much, but will there be audio and or transcripts of this case released anytime soon, or are we at the mercy of waiting for the decision? Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[InterestedBystander]

http://www.illinoisc...a/On_Demand.asp

44 minutes

Edited by InterestedBystander, 10 September 2019 - 12:27 PM.

[bmyers]

First two minutes, you have to let us keep the FOID act because we have had the FOID act for 50 years and other places get to do it.

 

So based on this argument, i guess we get to keep slaves and women shouldn't vote because that is the way it was.

[mrmagloo]

Imho, Sigale did much better than that last case he stumbled through and clearly Fischer was not the typical stooge.  As I was listening, in the back of my head the entire purpose of screening to avoid felons, mentally challenged, and the rest of those ineligible kept resonating, and in context when the judge brought up Heller's decision regarding permissible screening.   The one thing that did come to mind though was the portion regarding the split out of the funds, in that only 3 dollars going to the admin for the program for the stated purpose.  Imho, that needed a push as anything over the $3, where the fund were essentially then a tax creating funds for other non-related government services.  I would have very quickly brought the point home that no other Constitutional Right are directly taxed.  By the states own testimony, if the FOID is determined to be reasonable, the Fee cannot exceed $3, which will in that case would gut and render in appropriate this new bill to increase it further and aspirate that by reducing the term. I'm interesting in hearing others takes.

Edited by mrmagloo, 10 September 2019 - 01:26 PM.

[chemical operator1]

My question is, if the FOID get dissolved what happens to people trying to get relief from the ISP director, and or going to court to gain a FOID per being a non violent felon? Would these all get flagged as now these people get nothing... no firearm right restored?

[Bitter Clinger]

I would imagine if they can pass the NICS, then they could get their gun.  No FOID or other nonsense required.

[Euler]

Listening to the audio, Sigale for Brown had two problems in his arguments.

Vivian Brown never even tried to apply for a FOID, so it's difficult to argue that she had exhausted her options to obtain a FOID, including finding the cost of a FOID beyond her means. Exhaustion will probably be important for the case as applied specifically to her.

Sigale kept introducing hypotheticals, which are more appropriate for a facial challenge, but this case is only about Vivian Brown.

The lower court ruling simply asserted that the requirement to obtain a FOID as a condition to exercise a 2nd Amendment right was enough to make the FOID requirement unconstitutional.

I think it could go either way.

[cybermgk]

I can't help but fearing, if the FOID gets knocked down, then the Dems will pass idiotic crap, like background checks on ammo purchases.

[Euler]

My question is, if the FOID get dissolved what happens to people trying to get relief from the ISP director, and or going to court to gain a FOID per being a non violent felon? Would these all get flagged as now these people get nothing... no firearm right restored?

I would imagine if they can pass the NICS, then they could get their gun.  No FOID or other nonsense required.

This case is only about long guns in the home, but the person in question still needs to be otherwise eligible for a FOID, even if the FOID is eliminated, so no felonies, no misdemeanor batteries, no DUIs, no mental commitments, etc.

Also the FOID would remain a requirement for a handgun in the home or a long gun outside the home, as well as a prerequisite for a CCL. Removing the FOID for those other conditions would require other cases.

[Euler]

I can't help but fearing, if the FOID gets knocked down, then the Dems will pass idiotic crap, like background checks on ammo purchases.

FYI, California already has that.

[chemical operator1]

If the FOID is dissolved, and people seeking relief are now at the mercy of passing a NICS. It would be nice if the ATF would have it their budget to seek relief, but Schumer had this blocked in the 90's and sadly I dont see it coming back. I do HATE the FOID act, but seems that because of the FOID act people with past convictions that deem themselves worthy now are at risk of losing it all if the FOID is wiped out. I'm kinda torn between yes and no...

[papa]

If the FOID is dissolved, and people seeking relief are now at the mercy of passing a NICS. It would be nice if the ATF would have it their budget to seek relief, but Schumer had this blocked in the 90's and sadly I dont see it coming back. I do HATE the FOID act, but seems that because of the FOID act people with past convictions that deem themselves worthy now are at risk of losing it all if the FOID is wiped out. I'm kinda torn between yes and no...

 

How do people in other states without the FOID card get their rights returned?  I want the FOID card gone!