Jump to content

People v. Brown - FOID ruled unconstituional in IL District Court


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

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

 

 

post-195-0-47814100-1555367445_thumb.jpg

 

Brown Legal Fund $225.00

Edited by Molly B.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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 by THE KING
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

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 by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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

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

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
×
×
  • Create New...