Jump to content

Texasgrillchef

Members
  • Posts

    106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Texas, Illinois, Maryland LTC Instructor, frequent Traveler, Off-Roader, Bronco Badlands x2, Gun Rights lobbyist.

Recent Profile Visitors

124 profile views

Texasgrillchef's Achievements

Member

Member (3/24)

  1. In regards to seller buyer and keeping records…. How does this apply to an out of state buyer or seller? How could Illinois enforce anything against an out of state citizen? If I come there and buy a firearm and go back home. FFL’s here aren’t required to keep records or report. And we aren’t required to keep records if I sell it here. what if someone from Illinois, comes to Texas and I sell them a firearm. Legally in Texas I don’t have to check or view or do anything. (Although morally I should, and should to protect myself, but legally not required to do anything in Texas) Illinois will be hard pressed to make me do anything here in Texas. i have a Non-Resident Illinois CCL, but no FOID, so is it saying that a FFL as well as Private are not allowed to sell or transfer me a firearm? what about a relative, giving me their firearm? Or through inheritance? When I am executor off the will. I could take the firearms to Texas. is Illinois even going to know? As far as I know, Illinois doesn’t require anyone to register their firearms. Correct?
  2. NRA Instructor, Texas, Illinois, and Maryland LTC Instructor. Gun Rights lobbyist.

  3. We should keep in mind that there are several or even more AWB laws that are being challenged in our court system across the country in several circuit courts. At least one or two will make it to the Supreme Court petitioning for Cert. long before this case ever makes it to the first appellate court. The whole point of filing this case, as well as many others that are being filed in other states right now is that even if SCOTUS rules in our favor in another AWB case. We still have to challenge the law in every other state that is different from the state that was being challenged and decided by SCOTUS. Example… The current NY case that will be heard by SCOTUS on the “need” or “showing cause” requirement to get a LTC in New York, Even when SCOTUS rules against New York and invalidates their LTC law, or portions of it. Those in the other 7 states that require a person to show cause will have to challenge their state laws, before they will be invalidated as well. The lower courts will invalidate them, and those cases won’t ever get appealed because the case was allready decided by SCOTUS. Sometimes, although it has been rare, a state will change their unconstitutional law, before a legal suit has been filed. It is this reason, that new lawsuits for challenging “show cause” for LTC have been refiled in New Jersey, Maryland, California, Massachusetts, etc… even though prior suits have lost and been denied cert. for basically the same reason. Multiple suits filed in multiple courts across the country and in many different states in many different circuits is a Legal Strategy used to fight unconstitutional laws. One additional reason this is done, is that the challenge over a unconstitutional law may appear to be the same. It’s not. Every state writes their AWB or LTC laws slightly different. As well as the facts around each case are different as well. When SCOTUS looks at cases to review they are looking for specific details in the case as well. Including the briefs of each side. When you look at these cases, while their is one main litigant, you will notice that 99% of the time, they are joined by multiple litigants as well. This is done to help keep the case alive if one or more of the litigants is found or ruled not to have any “standing” or not found to have “cause”. Think about this. Why did SCOTUS deny cert on two cases, on the needing “good cause” requirement to get a LTC for Maryland and New Jersey, but ultimately decided to take approve cert for the New York LTC case. It’s because of how each state wrote their laws, the litigants, the facts around those cases, and the arguments each side made along the way. Mostly though IMHO New York was chosen because of the way their laws were written, and the REASON they initiated showing “good cause” need which started I believe in 1922. Makes it easier for the Supreme Court to rule against them. (IMHO)
  4. It will be interesting to see how this comes out. One case similar to this was allready denied cert by SCOTUS. However I believe they are looking for a certain case that they easily rule in favor of. Which I believe will be all dependent on the crime, or other reason that invalidates ownership, possession, or obtaining a LTC. How SCOTUS rules on the current NY LTC case could possibly have some effect on this case as well. Possibly. We will see once the NY SCOTUS case is decided. Because this case (White v IL) won’t have any final decision, before SCOTUS decides on the NY case.
  5. A lot depends on how the opinion by the Supreme Court issued and if they rule those parts as invalid or not. The other thing is known as case law. If the SC rules those parts unconstitutional as it relates to brown. Then Defense attorneys can use the same defense for other similar cases. Thus in effect making that section invalid. Ie… I move to Illinois, bring my firearms with me, and don’t get a FOID. Never take my firearms from the home. The police would be hard pressed to arrest me or confiscate my firearms. My defense would be brown. It would not be a winnable case by the DA. Revocation of ones FOID, and firearm confiscation would be a different matter though. If your FOID was being revoked because you were just convicted of a crime that makes you ineligible to own a firearm under federal law, the brown case would not be of any significance. The only law Vivian Brown broke, was not having a FOID. If they were trying to confiscate your firearms simply because you let your FOID card expire, or moved to IL and failed to get a FOID, Then that would be a different issue. The Brown case would become a factor in your defense. While this case pertains solely to the FOID and possession of a firearm in the home as well as paying a fee to posses a firearm in the home. The SC could easily rule and invalidate that section of the FOID act to require a FOID to posses a firearm in the home or even outside of the home. They could even invalidate the whole FOID act if they chose too. However I doubt they will. I don’t see them invalidating the FOID for firearm purchase either. One other thing to keep in mind as well. As far as possibilities go. If SCOTUS rules against the state of NY on their LTC case, and IL SC rules in favor of brown even on a limited scope. I am sure, someone will file a lawsuit against the state of IL to try and invalidate the entire FOID act. Which IMHO May end up actually winning in our favor. However as I have said in the past… it ain’t over till the fat lady sings, and we get a determination and opinions issued from the Supreme Court and from SCOTUS. One other thing too… even if the IL SC rules against IL or even against Brown. Either party could and can still file an appeal to the Federal Circuit court and SCOTUS. It is rare for IL though to appeal a case on a Federal Level to SCOTUS though.
  6. Th judge and thus the Supreme Court, will be looking at the Constitutionality of the FOID act as it relates to possession in the home. That is what the judge wrote his opinion on, that the FOID act is unconstitutional as it relates solely to th posses in in the home. Many of us will argue that the Entire FOID act is unconstitutional, which it may very well be. However the Supreme Court of IL will only be looking at its constitutionality based on possession in solely in the home.
  7. Yes and no. If you read the opinion issued by the lower court, his logic was this… He used the difference of being in the home, ones domicile, and being outside the home. Heller ruled that we have a right to have a firearm in our home, in our “castle”. The opinion compared to what is allowed in the home, Verus public. He used to examples. One voting, and two freedom of speech. We can make it illegal to yell “Fire” in public places when their is no fire. What we cant do, is to make it illegal to yell “fire” in your own home. in regards to voting. It would clearly be unconstitutional if we required a “fee” to be allowed to vote from home. In fact Illinois law even requires mail in votes to be return postage paid by the state, county, or city. Thus we cant charge a fee, or require a license to exercise another constitutional right in your own home as well. Whats interesting to note, is that his opinion clearly outlines in terms of for the home only. And that Vivian Brown was in her home, at the time of the “crime” and not outside of her home. So that’s the delineating factor. HOWEVER…. One should note that his opinion is based on The Heller case, which was about having a firearm in the home. Within the next 12 months we hopefully will have a new case, the NY case, which hopefully will make it clear that we have a constitutional right to own carry and posses a firearm OUTSIDE of the home. Once we have that case in the books. I foresee the FOID act being challenged for the purpose of needing to have a FOID to buy or posses a firearm outside the home as well. That case, might even force Illinois to finally allow open carry as well. We won’t know though until opinions have been issued on both cases.
  8. Based on the lower court ruling of that judge, yes it would be unconstitutional to require a FOID to own a gun in your home, but not to buy one. It is also unconstitutional to charge $10 for a FOID as well. The thing is though, the Supreme Court does have a little leeway. They do have the capability to come back and say the entire FOID act is unconstitutional. However that is unlikely. I suspect the Supreme Court will uphold the ruling that requiring a FOID card to have a firearm in your possession in your own home to be unconstitutional. They might say the same thing on charging $10 to have a FOID just to have a firearm in the home. But if they rule item 1 unconstitutional, then the fee is moot at that point. However it is possible they may rule the fee unconstitutional for the FOID no matter if it’s in the home or otherwise. The latest I have found on the case from the State AG is that the states brief has a due date of September 9th, 2021. So sometime within 12 months after that, or before that date of 2022. We should have a ruling on this case. Unless the state AG try’s to appeal to a Federal court. Which is possible but I doubt.
  9. At this time.. I am the only Authorized and certified Illinois CCL instructor in Texas, for new CCL’s and Renewals. The other two listed on the ISP instructor list, are NOT teaching classes, or have moved out of state. I will be holding a combination NRA Basic Pistol /Illinois CCL class on September 15th, and 16th in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. contact me for further details if interested.
  10. I wonder how the case of People V Brown will change this, once the case makes it to the IL Supreme Court and they uphold that the fee, and requirement to have a FOID to posses a firearm in the home is ruled unconstitutional. it May still be required to purchase a firearm or have one outside the home, but the judge clearly ruled it unconstitutional to pay the fee and have a FOID required for possession in ones home.
  11. It won’t matter if it is heard en Banc or not. This case will still end up with a petition for cert at the Supreme Court. What will matter, and could be good or bad, is the opinion written by the en Banc panel if it is head en Banc. It is very possible, that this could get stayed pending the outcome of the NY case. The NY case, could end up with not just an opinion and effect on carry of a firearm outside the home, but could have an effect on HOW the lower courts are to use if at all any level of scrutiny. However… as the saying goes… we won’t know till the fat lady sings.
  12. If you will notice, this case is now pending and being held by SCOTUS pending the outcome of the NY case that SCOTUS has accepted for a hearing.
  13. If you read the opinion given in April by the Judge. The point he made multiple times with the various state arguments was the fact that every argument used by the state, was for cases relating to a firearm OUTSIDE the home. Even the cases talking about fees and or taxes, all relate to us of a firearm OUTSIDE the home. Even the purchase of a firearm is different. Keep in mind, one example he used in the Opinion, was that we would never allow an administrative fee to allow someone to vote from home. There is even an Illinois law, that requires mail in votes to have return postage paid by the state. We can’t even ask or require them to pay the cost of a stamp. The difference and the Part of the FOID law he invalidated was simply two parts. The part of needing a FOID for possession in the home, and paying a fee for the FOID. He did not invalidate needing a FOID for ammunition, or the purchase of a firearm or ammunition. He also didn’t invalidate the possibility of still needing a FOID if the state did not charge any fee either.
×
×
  • Create New...