Molly B. Posted March 21, 2019 at 04:52 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 04:52 PM (edited) This is a case in my own circuit court that we have been monitoring for the past year. The court ruled the FOID Act unconstitutional in regards to the licensing and taxing requirement to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition in your own home. The IL Attorney General has appealed the case to the IL Supreme Court. Cliff notes: Lady with a clean record, in possession of a single shot, bolt action rifle .22 in the home for personal protection. No FOID but otherwise eligible for a FOID. Judge ruled requiring a license and charging a fee/tax to exercise a Constitutional right in the home unconstitutional. David Sigale with the Second Amendment Foundation will be representing Ms. Brown in her appeal to the IL Supreme Court appeal. Brown 2017CM60-ORDER-2_14_2018.pdf Brown 2017CM60-ORDER-10_16_2018.pdf Brown Legal Fund $225.00 Edited April 15, 2019 at 10:31 PM by Molly B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeM Posted March 21, 2019 at 04:55 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 04:55 PM Nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeper13 Posted March 21, 2019 at 04:56 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 04:56 PM Very nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:03 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:03 PM Very nice. My only concern is the language "in the home". Is that written in the courts written opinion. I would be happy to see it as unconstitutional period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bird76Mojo Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:12 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:12 PM (edited) With that judges opinion, Illinois is doubling down on fees/taxes outside the home by requiring both a FOID AND a CCL.. Very interesting. Edited March 21, 2019 at 05:13 PM by Bird76Mojo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
357 Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:15 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:15 PM That means FOID and all licenses and fees are Unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:22 PM Author Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:22 PM Very nice. My only concern is the language "in the home". Is that written in the courts written opinion. I would be happy to see it as unconstitutional period. We would be too but remember, McDonald vs Chicago had to remove the ban in in the home before we could get rid of the ban outside the home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2smartby1/2 Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:24 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:24 PM Well done... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmagloo Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:26 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:26 PM Wow, just wow. Excellent news! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmyers Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:34 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:34 PM Wow, this is some of the best news I have heard lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodoun da Vinci Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:37 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:37 PM Kudos to all for keeping this ball rolling.....and thank you. VooDoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:38 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:38 PM (edited) Very nice. My only concern is the language "in the home".Is that written in the courts written opinion.I would be happy to see it as unconstitutional period. We would be too but remember, McDonald vs Chicago had to remove the ban in in the home before we could get rid of the ban outside the home.I hope that is the direction we go. I would like to see the FOID card to be considered "Facially Unconstitutional" same as the Webb case was ruled on today. That ruling is AWESOME. Edited March 21, 2019 at 05:39 PM by THE KING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:54 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:54 PM This is yuge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:57 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:57 PM Why are those docs dates from 2018? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FieldGL Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:06 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:06 PM Why are those docs dates from 2018? I just noticed that. Either way, good news. Hope we can continue the progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:09 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:09 PM Why are those docs dates from 2018? As Molly B said, it's been on the radar for a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:10 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:10 PM Why are those docs dates from 2018?As Molly B said, it's been on the radar for a year.Why is she posting about it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:13 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:13 PM Why is she posting about it now? Because of the appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:13 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:13 PM Great news. What other Constitutionally protected right do you have to pass a test and pay for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
springfield shooter Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:17 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:17 PM Very nice. My only concern is the language "in the home". Is that written in the courts written opinion. I would be happy to see it as unconstitutional period. We would be too but remember, McDonald vs Chicago had to remove the ban in in the home before we could get rid of the ban outside the home. Common sense (I know...I know...) dictates that one would have to be able to transport the firearm and ammunition TO the home. If it's legal IN the home without a license, it has to be legal getting it TO the home without a license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:24 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:24 PM Very nice. My only concern is the language "in the home".Is that written in the courts written opinion.I would be happy to see it as unconstitutional period. We would be too but remember, McDonald vs Chicago had to remove the ban in in the home before we could get rid of the ban outside the home. Common sense (I know...I know...) dictates that one would have to be able to transport the firearm and ammunition TO the home. If it's legal IN the home without a license, it has to be legal getting it TO the home without a license.I like the way you think. I haven't thought about it from that perspective, if you look at it from a much broader perspective based on all the FOID requirements maybe the whole FOID card issue can be found unconstitutional. I like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbacs Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:31 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:31 PM Not direct on topic guys n gals! Be sure to become a supporting member here at ICMollyB, Mauserme and others need all our help they can get.Lawyers cost, time costs.The two posts today by MollyB show that we are or can be moving in the correct direction. 11,000 members here, let’s give a hand! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:36 PM Author Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:36 PM Why are those docs dates from 2018?As Molly B said, it's been on the radar for a year.Why is she posting about it now? Because there were motions to reconsider, waiting for the court to rule on motions to reconsider, etc. The case could have died on the vine, so to speak. It's only in the appeal process or decisions not to appeal that we make or end progress in a case. By the judge denying motions to dismiss, the case grew legs and now it is on the way to the IL Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS1 Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:48 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:48 PM This is good news. Great work! If $10 for a FOID is an onerous tax, what about the $25/firearm and $0.05/round in Cook County? Also, does the fact that it was a single shot bolt action .22 matter in this decision? Seems like the perfect case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomG Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:51 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:51 PM $But what about the children?$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tricolor Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:54 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:54 PM Seems like a wonderful fact pattern to push! Great news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosta Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:57 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:57 PM Very good news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:58 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:58 PM (edited) Constitutional protected rights don't end at your doorway threshold, so if even if the wording of a final ruling is narrow it should be easy to expand upon. And even in the interm a ruling that no FOID is needed to own/possses guns in your residence is a HUGE step forward in this state. Edited March 21, 2019 at 06:58 PM by Flynn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2smartby1/2 Posted March 21, 2019 at 07:20 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 07:20 PM Very nice. My only concern is the language "in the home". Is that written in the courts written opinion. I would be happy to see it as unconstitutional period. We would be too but remember, McDonald vs Chicago had to remove the ban in in the home before we could get rid of the ban outside the home. Common sense (I know...I know...) dictates that one would have to be able to transport the firearm and ammunition TO the home. If it's legal IN the home without a license, it has to be legal getting it TO the home without a license. Good point! Unless, they come back and say something silly like.....it only applies to weapons and ammo created within the home... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagt48 Posted March 21, 2019 at 07:29 PM Share Posted March 21, 2019 at 07:29 PM Very nice. My only concern is the language "in the home".Is that written in the courts written opinion.I would be happy to see it as unconstitutional period. We would be too but remember, McDonald vs Chicago had to remove the ban in in the home before we could get rid of the ban outside the home. Common sense (I know...I know...) dictates that one would have to be able to transport the firearm and ammunition TO the home. If it's legal IN the home without a license, it has to be legal getting it TO the home without a license.Good point! Unless, they come back and say something silly like.....it only applies to weapons and ammo created within the home... Check and check... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now