Jump to content

Johnson vs ISP - IL Supreme Court Rules 7-0 Win for Johnson


Molly B.
 Share

Recommended Posts

Judge Dunn, circuit judge in Wabash County has ruled in favor of our plaintiff in Johnson vs ISP. This case challenges the lifetime ban on firearm possession for individuals prohibited for misdemeanor domestic battery convictions under the federal Lautenberg Act. It is similar to the Corum case which won in IL Supreme Court a few years ago but a new challenge was needed after IL changed IL law right after the Corum ruling.

 

The Judge Dunn's ruling is attached. If appealed this case will advance to the IL Supreme Court because of the constitutional challenge. (This copy is not signed but will be once we get a copy of the ruling filed with the clerk.)

 

ORDER Regarding Second Amendment As Applied Challenge (Shawna Johnson v. ISP, Wabash CO. No. 2013-MR-15)(FINAL DRAFT - SEPT 29 2018 at 11 PM).pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 8 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

After six long years in the court system - IL Supreme Court rules in favor of Shawna Johnson!! 7-0

 

 

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that, under section 10 of the FOID Card Act, granting Johnson relief would not be contrary to federal law. 430 ILCS 65/10©(4) (West 2012). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court directing the issuance of a FOID card to Johnson. Based on our holding, there is no need to address the constitutional basis for the trial court’s ruling. Accordingly, we vacate the circuit court’s holding that section 922(g)(9) and the provisions of the FOID Card Act (id. §§ 8(n), 10( :cool:, 10©(4)), along with the relevant provisions of the Illinois Administrative Code, are unconstitutional as applied to Johnson.
¶ 52
Affirmed in part and vacated in part.

 

 

 

 

IL Supreme Court ruling Johnson v ISP.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Page 9, para 30 - this is a huge step for IL Supreme Court: We find that (1) the right to keep and bear arms is a “civil right,” (2) Illinois has a regulatory mechanism to restore those rights through an individualized determination, and (3) relief granted under section 10 of the FOID Card Act constitutes a sufficient restoration of civil rights as intended by section 921(a)(33)( b(ii).

 

This could affect many, many denials based on "issuing a FOID card would be contrary to federal law".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Page 9, para 30 - this is a huge step for IL Supreme Court: We find that (1) the right to keep and bear arms is a “civil right,” (2) Illinois has a regulatory mechanism to restore those rights through an individualized determination, and (3) relief granted under section 10 of the FOID Card Act constitutes a sufficient restoration of civil rights as intended by section 921(a)(33)( b(ii).

 

This could affect many, many denials based on "issuing a FOID card would be contrary to federal law".

Yes, but civil rights, as opposed to inalienable rights, can be restricted via code and law. Not sure, I like that finding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Molly as I have said in the past I know someone with a near identical situation (charged domestic & plead simple and lost rights) that has been waiting for this case to resolve so they could hopefully restore their rights as well, how would they proceed now that this ruling has come down?

 

I'm guessing just re-apply for FOID first and see what happens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest waiting just a bit, the state has 34 days to decide if they want to appeal. In the meantime, have them check their status on the ISP website. If it says revoked or denied, they cannot reapply, they would need to appeal in the circuit court in the county where they live. I am going to assume they would need the same notarized statements required by other people who have to appeal in court. We might be able to find a template for the petition they would need to file with the court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Figuratively, the ISP has been taken out to the woods, made to duckwalk without pants, while the plaintiff walked behind them wearing wingtip shoes and imitating an NFL kicker booting a 65-yard field goal.

 

That would be the objective, scientific description of how to characterize this win.

post-11524-0-99403000-1580848659_thumb.jpg

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...