Molly B. Posted March 21, 2019 at 04:52 PM 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.
THE KING Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:03 PM 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.
Bird76Mojo Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:12 PM 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
357 Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:15 PM Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:15 PM That means FOID and all licenses and fees are Unconstitutional.
Molly B. Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:22 PM Author 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.
mrmagloo Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:26 PM Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:26 PM Wow, just wow. Excellent news!
bmyers Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:34 PM Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:34 PM Wow, this is some of the best news I have heard lately.
Vodoun da Vinci Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:37 PM Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:37 PM Kudos to all for keeping this ball rolling.....and thank you. VooDoo
THE KING Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:38 PM 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
Davey Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:57 PM Posted March 21, 2019 at 05:57 PM Why are those docs dates from 2018?
FieldGL Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:06 PM 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.
mauserme Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:09 PM 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.
Davey Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:10 PM 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?
mauserme Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:13 PM Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:13 PM Why is she posting about it now? Because of the appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.
Jeffrey Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:13 PM 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?
springfield shooter Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:17 PM 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.
THE KING Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:24 PM 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.
Bubbacs Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:31 PM 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!
Molly B. Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:36 PM Author 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.
RS1 Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:48 PM 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.
DomG Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:51 PM Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:51 PM $But what about the children?$
tricolor Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:54 PM Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:54 PM Seems like a wonderful fact pattern to push! Great news.
Flynn Posted March 21, 2019 at 06:58 PM 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
2smartby1/2 Posted March 21, 2019 at 07:20 PM 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...
jagt48 Posted March 21, 2019 at 07:29 PM 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...
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