bmyers

Also, for those of you looking for ways to donate to SAF, you can do that via Amazon Smile and a percentage of your purchases is donated to SAF. It isn't a large amount, but pennies add up.

I think the SAf, GOA, and our own Illinois Carry Forum are all good places to look at donating to support the 2nd.

My understanding is that directly, none of these cases will affect Illinois since none of them are in our District. Yet, indirectly, they will affect all districts because SCOTUS has told them their decisions were wrong and do over. This puts ever district on notice of what the expectations are from SCOTUS. Now, as we know some judges feel that they are above the law/are the law and will make decisions based on what they want and then will have to be smacked down by a higher court. All theses cases will be citable to my understanding since SCOTUS passed judgement on them, so they do affect our circuit. Maybe someone way smarter than me can come along and explain it better.

Thank you! Learned something new today.

20-1507 ASSN. OF NJ RIFLE, ET AL. V. BRUCK, ATT'Y GEN. OF NJ, ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022). 21-1194 DUNCAN, VIRGINIA, ET AL. V. BONTA, ATT'Y GEN. OF CA The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022). 21-902 BIANCHI, DOMINIC, ET AL. V. FROSH, ATT'Y GEN. OF MD, ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022). I didn't se anything listed for Young 20-1639 YOUNG, GEORGE K. V. HAWAII, ET AL.

This may be what you are looking for https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/063022zor_5he6.pdf

It will be interesting to see how they try to get around it.

Yet the questions does bring up some other answered questions. If you buy a new home, do you have to leave the guns in your current residents or can you legally transport them to your new home without a FOID? If you get your ammo from another State and bringing it back to your home in Illinois where you aren't required to have FOID in your home, but must have a FOID to get the ammo to the location where you aren't required to have a FOID? If they are basing the intent of the legislative e body, then NO one would be required to have FOID except criminals and mentally ill, who can't get them. If you asked those that based the FOID Act, the INTENT was to keep guns from criminals and mentally ill. Well, if we are basing the current decision off of intent, you are not a criminal or mentally ill, then you don't need a FOID card because the INTENT wasn't for law abiding citizens to denied their rights, but to stop criminals and the mentally ill. This ruling brings up way more questions than it answers.

My guess, they do not have any great insight, but it provides them away of avoiding dealing with the issue for now. The blamed everything on the lower court and the process. Then if SCOTUS makes a ruling and it impacts the FOID Act, it was taken out of their hands. So, it appears like a win-win for IL Supreme Court. Yet, I'm not a lawyer and just voicing my two cents.

What I don't understand is the Court admits there is a need for review and to establish that it is constitutional or not, but doesn't rule on that issue, because of the procedure of the lower court. We recognize that the parties are clearly anxious to have this court review the circuit court’s order of April 26, 2021, finding section 2(a)(1) unconstitutional as applied. Indeed, in the circuit court, counsel for defendant was so intent on reaching the constitutional issue that he took the extraordinary step of moving to vacate the June 4, 2020, modified order—an order that granted his client complete relief in a criminal case—even though counsel was appearing before a new judge and had been given no assurance on the record as to how that judge might rule on any future defense motions. Nevertheless, the parties’ desire to have this court review the circuit court’s April 26, 2021, order does not solve the fundamental problem presented here: to review the circuit court’s order finding section 2(a)(1) unconstitutional, this court would first have to conclude that the circuit court had the authority to enter that order. And to reach that conclusion, we would have to hold that a circuit court possesses the power to set aside the directions of this court. We cannot take that step.

I think it means we are back to where we were 2 years ago. Reading the opinion seemed to have nothing to do with the FOID Act but instead dealt with the lower court and how they handled it. Be curious to see what much brighter minds than mine have to say about.

So any guesses on what the ruling will be today? If this was Vegas, we would be taking bets.

Be interesting to see what they decide. Trying not to get my hopes to high, but still stay positive.

I have to say, I agree with you. Either you are an adult or you are not. I fully realize that people mature at different rates/ages and there are some 'adults' that should be considered minors. What is the right age? 18? 21? 31? I don't know, but you can't be a partial adult. If you have the right to vote and be charged in criminal crimes and civil affairs as an adult, then you are an adult.

Items I noted: State Counsel The State needs the FOID card and it is a minimal burden for a person to apply The State Counsel stated to his knowledge FOID cards are going out in 30 days; the FOID card is easy and quick to get Chicago and Cook County says they need the FOID card so everyone needs a FOID card The State stated everybody in a home and that has access to a firearm in the house should have a FOID card This only applies to this defendant If the question is about how the FOID card works, then it needs to be remanded back to lower court so data can be gathered to show how well it works The case isn't about a law abiding citizen, but about a person who admitted that she wasn't following the law by not applying for a FOID card Defense Counsel FOID card is not a minimal burden and the failure to have one even though would be legal to have a firearm, the penalty is great Gun control laws were based on racisms Only two States require FOID cards demonstrates the novelty of the FOID restriction The State has the burden to show the FOID law is Constitutional The FOID law is not longstanding and not grounded in history The State is just tossing data and regulations out there hoping that some thing will stick; counsel went through several cases cited by the State to show they don't apply to this case Judges Asked why it is okay to cast such a broad net over everyone when it is small group you are looking at (felons and mental ill) Judge asked if there was grounds for them to be back hearing this case since they had already ruled on it and that the case shouldn't of been brought back since it was already ruled unconsutitional Are there other ways for the State to meet their goal of stopping felons and mental ill from getting guns since only two States have FOID cards? Questioned if the counsel has his client best interest at heart and wanted to know how he would defend this if it was sent back Asked if the State presented evidence to defend the FOID law The Justices seem to ask few questions to the defense counsel. Although, it is the burden of proof on the State.

What time frame, I clicked on the link and it shows over 2 hours of video Found it 1:27 time frame

IN the webinar, if I remember correctly, it didn't show an issue date or an expiration date. The examples they provided did not include an issue date.

So, I watched the video Molly posted of the webinar. Not much detail there, just the highlights and still didn't get the answer to my question. How am I supposed to know when my CCL expires? There is no issue date on the new card and no expiration date on the new card. ISP is horrible about sending out reminders and even if they send out a reminder is it going to be with enough time to allow a person to schedule and take the refresher class?

So how will I know my date of my CCL expiration? I don't have an issue date nor do I have an expiration date on the new cards. Will they still send out just a CCL card? Are they doing away with the required renewal training for the CCL since I no longer have an expiration date?

That sounds/looks promising for the good guys.

Just a reminder to renew your account. I was just checking and seen mine had expired this month, so I got mine renewed. The website and the work that Molly does is well worth the $25 a year.

Will this case be used as grounds for a lawsuit to free everyone in the State?

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.

He is an ITGUY from 1686, he is use to working with stone tablets, quill and ink, so give him a break, he doesn't know about these new devices, but neither does ISP.

I was wondering the same thing. Yet, reading his post again, looks like he is putting in Effingham and getting IL in return.