Jump to content

Silhouette

Members
  • Posts

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Silhouette's Achievements

Member

Member (2/24)

  1. Recent dissents from denials of certiorari petitions suggest that some Justices may wish to clearly define the level of scrutiny applied to come to the decision that Euler predicts above. I think that there are two things to watch in this case: obviously, the outcome and legality of "may issue" but also whether the framework for deciding the matter is transferrable to other second amendment cases. Predicting SCOTUS decisions is a bit of a lost cause, but "how" they decide can sometimes be more important that "what" they decide.
  2. Unfortunately, even if the IL SC rules the statute unconstitutional as applied to Brown, there will still be further wrangling because this is not a facial challenge to the statue. That said, the effect will be somewhat similar -- at least in the home. On the bright side, it may have significant impact on firearm confiscation following revocation of a FOID.
  3. As I recall, this was an "as applied" challenge so I don't know that the court needs to determine whether "inside" and "outside" are severable (indeed, they are should not be severable due to the way the statue was crafted). I think that the court can instead look at the specific circumstances (which were indeed inside the home) and rule narrowly on the specific set of facts presented.
  4. The scrutiny argument was raised in the NJ Superior Court (though rather thoroughly dismissed):
  5. SiliconSorcerer: I'll try to provide another interpretation of Euler's comments. First, courts decide disagreements. Disagreements can be over the facts of the matter or over elements of the law. (e.g. "Did you punch me?" is a question of fact. "Is punching really illegal" is question of law.) The lower courts (either with a jury or a bench trial decided by a judge) are charged with establishing the facts. If a question of law arises, the judge will rule on the law and provide instruction to the jury so that they can get on with determining the facts. However, these questions of law can be important and disagreeing on the law is common among lawyers. Indeed, most of our 2A questions are really questions of law not fact. (E.g. "Did you have a foid?"=fact. "Do you need to have a FOID to exercise a fundamental right?" =question of law). When lawyers disagree with a judge's ruling on the law, there is a process for appeal to a high court. The higher court generally does not establish facts, but rather only looks at the facts as determined below in the context of the law. The hearing at a higher level court is typically a discussion between lawyers and judges about what the law means. Lawyers are expected to be able to suggest their interpretation of the law, why it is most proper, what problems might arise if the judge rules in their favor, etc. etc. These discussions can be very insightful or quickly get absurd depending on the skill of the lawyer and whim of the judge. If the ultimate ruling isn't favorable, the losing party can appeal to an even higher court, which may or may not take the case (depending on circumstance and whether the court has the power to decide what it will take). The IL supreme court generally has the final say on state law and the US supreme court has the final say on all matters (though typically defers on matters of state law).
  6. It's hard to predict what SCOTUS will do or decide -- especially before oral arguments. The Justices narrowed the question significantly and struck the word "citizens" from Clement's question, which could have implications both for 2nd's "the right of the people..." and the 14th's privileges and immunities clause invoked in Macdonald. That Thomas doesn't need Roberts to have a majority is also encouraging (as noted above). That is, it is unlikely that the conservatives were forced to narrow the question. Given all that, my hope would be for a very narrow but very solid ruling based on the clear text of the second amendment that provides guidance on _how_ to decide such cases such as invoking strict scrutiny. That is, in my opinion (and just mine), we don't necessarily need a sweeping ruling, but we need a clear ruling that will stand up for a long time and that provides a framework to permit GVR-ing many lower court rulings in the future as inconsistent with SCOTUS guidance. I look forward to listening to orals in the fall.
  7. Complaint: https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/1-Complaint.pdf
  8. I agree with Flynn. It would be great (in the legal sense, not in the wishing ill on someone sense) to find a plaintiff who suffered a legal injury while unable to ably defend themselves because they did not have a FOID/CCL despite the statutory time limit having passed. The complaint would then have to seen monetary damages as well as declaratory relief. This was the mistake that NYSRPA made in their case that was mooted by a NY law change at the supreme court. We have to assume that local and state gov'ts will try to moot these cases and requesting monetary damages for defined injuries (e.g. carjacking, robbery, burglary, etc) is one way to do it. Alternatively, a competitor who misses competitions, olympic trials, or even a hunting trip may provide enough to avoid mooting the case.
  9. The ATF website referencing unlicensed persons (like the OP) clearly says that "a person may transfer a firearm to a licensee in any state". (It's the last paragraph on the graphic provided by ealcala31). Licensees, being the in business, are indeed restricted to do transfers in the state in which they are licensed.
  10. Smallbore: (Saying the same thing Euler said but phrased differently) It is legal under federal law to transfer a firearm (long gun, handgun etc) to any FFL in any state. That FFL may transfer it to a buyer following all the relevant federal and local laws. To transport the firearm, you may ship it or transport it in person provided that it is transported/shipped legally. (As Euler said, this is all in the 1968 GCA)
  11. The status below will probably surprise no one as it has sadly become the norm, but I will share with the community anyway: I applied for IL CCL on 7/20 w/o prints (Cook County), and the application is still "under review". Today is 121 days since application.
  12. Euler: I apologize not being specific. The piece of your advice that I am questioning involved only "in the transferee's state of residence" qualifier. FFLs can outside the transferee's state of residence can transfer a long gun if the transfer is done in person. That is, the Indiana resident could travel to IL to do the transfer, but would have to follow IL waiting periods. We are in full agreement that interstate transfers as described by the original poser are legally required to go through an FFL.
  13. I agree with everything Euler has stated except: "Unlicensed individuals cannot transfer any gun between them across state lines unless they do it through an FFL in the transferee's state of residence." This is correct for handguns, but not for long guns (which is relevant to the thread's original query.) The ATF requires FFLs facilitating private transfers to follow all rules for direct transfers, which permits face-to-face transfers of long guns at the licensee's premises in another state, provided rules of both states are followed. If the original poster were to meet at an IL FFL's premises for the transfer (including waiting period), it could be done in Illinois. See: https://www.atf.gov/file/110076/download pg 4: "FFl-facilitated sales between private individuals are subject to the same rules and regulations as any other sale conducted by the FFl."
  14. 18 U.S. Code § 922 Section a 5: It shall be unlawful... for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to (A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and ( B ) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;
×
×
  • Create New...