28 replies to this topic

[Molly B.]

I found the sound quality very difficult to hear but some good arguments were made.  This is a civil lawsuit challenging the FOID Act which is broader in scope than Brown,  Brown case which is  criminial case that is narrow in scope based on the original case arguments.  The GSL case is being heard in IL Appellate Court, Fourth District.  The questioning posed by the judges is very interesting.

 

 

Case No. 4-19-0334

 

This link much easier to hear:  http://s000.tinyuplo...942564648374183

[InterestedBystander]

Cant get it to play on my tablet. An alternative link...

http://www.illinoisc...th_District.asp

multimedia.illinois.gov/court/AppellateCourt/Audio/2019/4th/100819_4-19-0334.mp3

Quality is poor with extreme low audio.

Edited by InterestedBystander, 30 October 2019 - 08:14 PM.

[steveTA84]

Going on the offensive feels good. Bravo GSL

[ChicagoRonin70]

What is this lawsuit about? There is no context here, and the links won't play for me.

[Bubbacs]

Delete

Edited by Bubbacs, 30 October 2019 - 07:16 PM.

[Sweeper13]

Unreal.. all the money the state spends on crap , they cant get a good sound system.

Edited by Sweeper13, 30 October 2019 - 08:06 PM.

[WitchDoctor]

Remrmbrt, Illinois is broke, only enough money for graft and criminal politics.

[MrSmallie]

Well the Justices actually sounded like they were thinking logically...

[Flynn]

I found the sound quality very difficult to hear but some good arguments were made.

 

I ran the audio file through a few quicky filters (compressor, hiss reduction, normalizer and converted to mono) nothing to brag about just default filters, but it makes it easier to hear/listen to.

 

http://s000.tinyuplo...942564648374183

[Molly B.]

 

I found the sound quality very difficult to hear but some good arguments were made.

 

I ran the audio file through a few quicky filters (compressor, hiss reduction, normalizer and converted to mono) nothing to brag about just default filters, but it makes it easier to hear/listen to.

 

http://s000.tinyuplo...942564648374183

 

 

WOW!!!!  Much better, thank you!

[357]

Title has typo, guns save lives.

[THE KING]

Title has typo, guns save lives.

The title is correct. Guns save life is the organization's name.

[Molly B.]

 

Title has typo, guns save lives.

That would be correct grammatically, but it is not the name of the org.

[mauserme]

Title has typo, guns save lives.

There's a different organization with that name, but they're not involved in this case.

[mikeyk101]

He may be talking about the safe part. Both organizations start with Guns Save (Guns Save Life v Guns Save Lives) but the thread title says Guns Safe...

Edited by mikeyk101, 31 October 2019 - 11:24 AM.

[Molly B.]

Got it.

[357]

He may be talking about the safe part. Both organizations start with Guns Save (Guns Save Life v Guns Save Lives) but the thread title says Guns Safe...

Yep, I was talking about the safe part.

[Timber]

Ty for doing the audio fix. I was really enthused at the questions the judges were raising. Let's hope this eventually leads to the end of theb foid.

[cybermgk]

If this prevails, I can see this idiotic state passing a CA like law, where they require a BC for all ammo purchases.

[cybermgk]

The State's Attourney has a real condescending attitude, tone and delivery.  There seems to be at least one 2a favorable male judge. 

[cybermgk]

After listening, IF 'Fix the FOid passes', I think the state is going to have a hard time defending those raises in renewal AND limited to in person at ISP locations as NOT being an undo burden.  Thier whole argument in this case, seems to me, that FOID is constitutional because it isn't an undo burden on a person, assuming they are law abiding.

[InterestedBystander]

After listening, IF 'Fix the FOid passes', I think the state is going to have a hard time defending those raises in renewal AND limited to in person at ISP locations as NOT being an undo burden.  Thier whole argument in this case, seems to me, that FOID is constitutional because it isn't an undo burden on a person, assuming they are law abiding.

I thought they dropped the in-person requirement in a later amendment?

Edited by InterestedBystander, 12 November 2019 - 04:08 PM.

[cybermgk]

 

After listening, IF 'Fix the FOid passes', I think the state is going to have a hard time defending those raises in renewal AND limited to in person at ISP locations as NOT being an undo burden.  Thier whole argument in this case, seems to me, that FOID is constitutional because it isn't an undo burden on a person, assuming they are law abiding.

I thought they dropped the in-person requiremment in a later amendment?

 

Did they?  Maybe so.  Hope so.

[Molly B.]

Appellate Court agrees with District Court - denies preliminary injunction.

 

https://courts.illin...ict/4190334.pdf

"In balancing the equities of this claim, we find a preliminary injunction is not warranted." . . .

 

While plaintiff has demonstrated a fair question as to each of the elements required, granting the preliminary injunction would change the status quo and would not benefit the public interest. In so finding, we make no judgment as to the final merits of plaintiff’s claims, nor do we suggest the FOID Act’s restrictions are mere inconveniences. Instead, we reemphasize the heavy burden a plaintiff must meet to receive a preliminary injunction, particularly in the context of constitutional challenges where the granting of an injunction would have far-reaching consequences for the public. . .

 

Defendants contend the FOID Act fees help defray the expenses associated with administrating the statute. Plaintiff does not dispute this fact, recognizing “the cost of making a FOID card is about equal to the application fee.” Because both parties acknowledge this fact, it is again reasonable to find that the fee has a legitimate purpose of defraying the expenses incident to the administration and enforcement of the licensing statute. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to show it would likely be successful on the merits of its claim.

 

- 22 -¶ 80III. CONCLUSION¶

 

81For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

 

¶ 82Affirmed.

[steveTA84]

Ok. New plaintiff needed for new case.

Anyone who doesn’t have a FOID currently that is being held up because of the system because they they felt the need for protection because of all the uncertainty going on the past few months?.....

[mrmagloo]

I don't get it.  They are simply saying that due to receiving an ID card worth the approximate value of the fee, that it's OK to restrict a Constitutional Right?  OK, where are Mandatory REAL Voter Cards?  And what about Freedom of Speech cards?  Do we now need to register for every frigging right we have?  What a cluster.

Edited by mrmagloo, 05 June 2020 - 01:49 PM.

[Euler]

I don't get it.  ...

The case is still live. There's just no injunction pending the final outcome of the case. However, part of the logic of denying the injunction is that the court thinks Guns Save Life is going to lose the case eventually, anyway.

Edited by Euler, 05 June 2020 - 03:00 PM.

[mrmagloo]

Yeah, I'm following, but the fact that they think restricting a right by a licensing scheme is OK, simply because the fee is reasonable in exchange for the cost of the license itself is mind numbing.  That's like saying it's OK for the government to charge a mandatory fee to tattoo a barcode on your forehead, if the fee is roughly inline with the cost of the damn tattoo. What the  h e l l  does that have to do with the core loss of Constitutionally GUARANTEED Rights? 

[mab22]

Appellate Court agrees with District Court - denies preliminary injunction.

 

https://courts.illin...ict/4190334.pdf

"In balancing the equities of this claim, we find a preliminary injunction is not warranted." . . .

 

While plaintiff has demonstrated a fair question as to each of the elements required, granting the preliminary injunction would change the status quo and would not benefit the public interest. In so finding, we make no judgment as to the final merits of plaintiff’s claims, nor do we suggest the FOID Act’s restrictions are mere inconveniences. Instead, we reemphasize the heavy burden a plaintiff must meet to receive a preliminary injunction, particularly in the context of constitutional challenges where the granting of an injunction would have far-reaching consequences for the public. . .

 

Defendants contend the FOID Act fees help defray the expenses associated with administrating the statute. Plaintiff does not dispute this fact, recognizing “the cost of making a FOID card is about equal to the application fee.” Because both parties acknowledge this fact, it is again reasonable to find that the fee has a legitimate purpose of defraying the expenses incident to the administration and enforcement of the licensing statute. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to show it would likely be successful on the merits of its claim.

 

- 22 -¶ 80III. CONCLUSION¶

 

81For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

 

¶ 82Affirmed.

 

 

That was only on the Tax portion, I thought they were agreeing with the plaintiff on the First portion which was the FOID ACT being unconstitutional.

Edited by mab22, 05 June 2020 - 04:34 PM.