Jump to content

People vs Aguilar


Recommended Posts

Wow, another interesting case. Trying to keep up with all this is almost a full time job.

I think it is a full time job, for Todd.

 

I can tell you for sure since I found this site my productivity has really suffered. I think I need to find a way to "parental control" it from myself if only for 6 hours a day so I can get some work done.

 

Patiently awaiting the "opinion" from the SCOIL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, another interesting case. Trying to keep up with all this is almost a full time job.

I think it is a full time job, for Todd.

 

I can tell you for sure since I found this site my productivity has really suffered. I think I need to find a way to "parental control" it from myself if only for 6 hours a day so I can get some work done.

 

Patiently awaiting the "opinion" from the SCOIL.

 

I could not agree more with the drop in productivity! But, that is why I have employees, right?

 

Now, I was looking at SCOIL, and thought it to be funny that it means, in Irish:

  1. Leisure time given to learning.
  2. A school; a place for learning or instruction.
  3. A student body; the disciples of a teacher.
  4. A sect; body of followers of a teacher or system, such as the Praetorian guard.
  5. An art gallery.

Hmm.. Interesting. So, the SCOIL is a SECT. And a Sect is what again? A group of people with somewhat different religious or political beliefs from those of a larger group to which they belong. Very fitting description of SCOIL!

 

Sorry for my rant.. Thought it too funny..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two big wins in the Illinois Supreme Court this morning. Update with more information to follow.

 

Edit with more info:

 

In People v. Aguilar, the Illinois Supreme Court held that there is a 2A right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense (essentially agreeing with the 7th Circuit's opinion in Moore) and therefore found that AUUW was unconstitutional and reversed Aguilar's conviction. However, the Illinois Supreme Court found that it is constitutional to ban minors from possessing firearms and upheld Aguilar's conviction under the minor in possession of a firearm statute.

 

In Coram v. The State of Illinois, the plaintiff was previously convicted of misdemeanour domestic battery, and therefore, was barred by federal law from possessing a firearm. The plaintiff sued in state court seeking to force ISP to issue him a FOID based on the argument that the federal ban was unconstitutional. The downstate judge ruled in plaintiff's favor finding that the federal ban was unconstitutional and ordering ISP to issue the plaintiff a FOID. ISP appealed and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order forcing the ISP to give a FOID to the plaintiff, but the supreme court also found that it was unnecessary for the trial court to reach the constitutional question so the supreme court overruled that part of the judge's order that found the federal ban unconstitutional. The take away from this case is that a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanour domestic battery charge has the opportunity to convince a judge that they are not a danger and should be entitled to regain their right to possess a firearm. If the judge is persuaded, the judge can revest the plaintiff with the right to possess a firearm and order the ISP to issue a FOID card.

Edited by Phatty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sweet sweet justice

 

 

Farmer - the thing on minors isn't so bad, the ruling just says specifically that it falls outside the scope of the 2nd amendment, it could be a 14th amendment issue though maybe.

 

In other words, the IL law that defines what a minor is, is to be considered a separate issue from 2nd amendment rights, thus they didn't find it relevant to the limitations the 2nd amendment puts on government wrt/ right to bear arms...

Edited by BrowningHP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So lets say a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence gets a FOID. Wouldn't he or she still be in violation of federal law? What about FFLs and the 4473 forms? Wouldn't the individual have to write down that they were convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So lets say a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence gets a FOID. Wouldn't he or she still be in violation of federal law? What about FFLs and the 4473 forms? Wouldn't the individual have to write down that they were convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence?

Under federal law, if a state has restored the civil rights of a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, then that person is no longer banned by federal law from possessing firearms. So the state judge's order should be treated under federal law as a restoration of the person's civil rights, and the federal ban would no longer apply to that person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is that 2 rulings that IL UUW is unconstitutional?

 

Yes, but the court pointed out in a footnote that the UUW statue was amended by the FCCA and that neither the FCCA or the amended UUW law was at question, just the prior UUW under which the defendant was convicted.

 

Also, while the court ruled that the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to the defendant due to his age, he was only 17 at the time of conviction so it shouldn't effect the court case involving an 18 year old suing the state over the foid provisions of requiring a parental signature for those under 21.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So does that mean we can start carrying today?

That's what I was saying.....

And that's the million dollar question. The Illinois Supreme Court only held that the law pre-FCCA was unconstitutional. They could very well hold that the law is no longer unconstitutional after FCCA was enacted. More specifically, after FCCA was enacted but before anyone can actually get a license, is the law still unconstitutional? This is the same question that the 7th Circuit is currently considering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reviewing these two lines of authority—the Illinois cases

holding that section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) is constitutional, and the

Seventh Circuit’s decision holding that it is not—we are convinced

that the Seventh Circuit’s analysis is the correct one. As the Seventh

Circuit correctly noted, neither Heller nor McDonald expressly limits

the second amendment’s protections to the home. On the contrary,

both decisions contain language strongly suggesting if not outright

confirming that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms

extends beyond the home. Moreover, if Heller means what it says,

and “individual self-defense” is indeed “the central component” of

the second amendment right to keep and bear arms (Heller, 554 U.S.

at 599), then it would make little sense to restrict that right to the

home, as “[c]onfrontations are not limited to the home.” Moore, 702

F.3d at 935-36.

 

Of course, in concluding that the second amendment protects the

right to possess and use a firearm for self-defense outside the home,

we are in no way saying that such a right is unlimited or is not subject

to meaningful regulation. See infra ¶¶ 26-27. That said, we cannot

escape the reality that, in this case, we are dealing not with a

reasonable regulation but with a comprehensive ban. Again, in the

form presently before us, section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A) categorically

prohibits the possession and use of an operable firearm for self defense

outside the home. In other words, section 24-1.6(a)(1),

(a)(3)(A) amounts to a wholesale statutory ban on the exercise of a

personal right that is specifically named in and guaranteed by the

United States Constitution, as construed by the United States

Supreme Court. In no other context would we permit this, and we will

not permit it here either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you can't carry today. See the foot note about how the opinion doesn't address the FCCA?

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4

 

I saw that. However, since the UUW law wasn't really amended, just an exception added, and the court has ruled that the UUW law is unconstitutional (I noticed there was no stay like the 7th issued)....

 

:ermm: :logik: :hmm:

 

Using logic, how can you have an exception to a law that is no longer in existence? ie, it was struck down as unconstitutional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The exception - - FCCA - - means that there isn't a total ban on carrying outside the home. All this case does is give us a state law precedent that 2A exists outside the home, which is huge for future cases.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4

It's also huge for everyone in the state that is currently being prosecuted for an AUUW charge that was pre-FCCA. They've all just been given a get-out-of-jail-free card.

 

Edit: It also shows why many state's attorneys that refused to prosecute anyone for UUW charges after the Moore decision came down were very wise not to waste resources on those cases.

Edited by Phatty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...