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

[mab22]

The Illinois Supreme Court, in my opinion, did not rule that no FOID is required to have a firearm in your home. The IL Sup. Ct. ruling is on a technical issue that no appeal directly from the trial court to the Supreme Ct. was appropriate here. Generally, when a statute is found unconstitutional, the case is directly appealed to the IL Sup. Ct. However, where the issue could have been decided by the trial court without determining whether the statute is constitutional, then the trial court is limited to just applying the statute. Here, the trial court found that the FOID statute did not apply in the home so the accused could not be prosecuted. The Supreme Ct said that the trial court's job was over once that determination was made and whether the FOID act was constitutional did not need to be addressed by the trial court. Because of that, the IL Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the constitutional question of whether the FOID act is unconstitutional. The IL Supreme Ct also did not have jurisdiction to determine whether the FOID act applies to guns in the home since that is not a constitutional issue that could be appealed directly to the Supreme Ct. So now, the case goes back to the trial court and the decision will reissue with a not guilty finding based on the trial court's determination that the FOID act does not apply to guns in the home.

 

The big question is whether the state will appeal that decision to the intermediate level appellate court. As I already noted, the entire issue could end up right back at the Supreme Court.

This seems like a decent interpretation of all of that confusing "mumbo jumbo" about whether or not they they could hear the case.

 

So if the FOID does not apply to the home, how does this person in the case, purchase new ammo, make sure the firearm is working and trains with it (takes it to the range), or purchase a new replacement one for use in the home? They can not do any of those things without a valid FOID, which means the FOID is in the way of "Home use"?

 

Does this also mean that you can not, as an illinois resident go hunting without a FOID?

[crufflesmuth]

 

The Illinois Supreme Court, in my opinion, did not rule that no FOID is required to have a firearm in your home. The IL Sup. Ct. ruling is on a technical issue that no appeal directly from the trial court to the Supreme Ct. was appropriate here. Generally, when a statute is found unconstitutional, the case is directly appealed to the IL Sup. Ct. However, where the issue could have been decided by the trial court without determining whether the statute is constitutional, then the trial court is limited to just applying the statute. Here, the trial court found that the FOID statute did not apply in the home so the accused could not be prosecuted. The Supreme Ct said that the trial court's job was over once that determination was made and whether the FOID act was constitutional did not need to be addressed by the trial court. Because of that, the IL Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the constitutional question of whether the FOID act is unconstitutional. The IL Supreme Ct also did not have jurisdiction to determine whether the FOID act applies to guns in the home since that is not a constitutional issue that could be appealed directly to the Supreme Ct. So now, the case goes back to the trial court and the decision will reissue with a not guilty finding based on the trial court's determination that the FOID act does not apply to guns in the home.

 

The big question is whether the state will appeal that decision to the intermediate level appellate court. As I already noted, the entire issue could end up right back at the Supreme Court.

 

Excellent point - Clearly you understand the legal aspects, but the point is, how can they state that the FOID is not applicable in her own home, which is in-conflict with the actual law. If they say the law doesn't apply, but the law itself says it does, seems to me they are OBLIGATED to settle the controversy that got the case to them? And that naturally leads to the entire chicken before the egg issue on obtaining and transferring the firearm and ammo to the home, which is also in conflict. Imho, this is why they punted.

 

 

The more I read this, the more I think iL SCOTUS remanded this on a technicality issue. After all is said and done, I think the state will have to appeal: there is too much for them to lose.

[mab22]

Wouldn’t the ideal case be for a person, not otherwise disqualified from owning a firearm, who doesn’t have a FOID try to purchase a firearm and get denied ?? Thereby the State infringes on his Right to Keep and Bear arms.

try to purchase a firearm "for use in the home" and get denied ??

Try it that way ;-)

[crufflesmuth]

 

The Illinois Supreme Court, in my opinion, did not rule that no FOID is required to have a firearm in your home. The IL Sup. Ct. ruling is on a technical issue that no appeal directly from the trial court to the Supreme Ct. was appropriate here. Generally, when a statute is found unconstitutional, the case is directly appealed to the IL Sup. Ct. However, where the issue could have been decided by the trial court without determining whether the statute is constitutional, then the trial court is limited to just applying the statute. Here, the trial court found that the FOID statute did not apply in the home so the accused could not be prosecuted. The Supreme Ct said that the trial court's job was over once that determination was made and whether the FOID act was constitutional did not need to be addressed by the trial court. Because of that, the IL Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the constitutional question of whether the FOID act is unconstitutional. The IL Supreme Ct also did not have jurisdiction to determine whether the FOID act applies to guns in the home since that is not a constitutional issue that could be appealed directly to the Supreme Ct. So now, the case goes back to the trial court and the decision will reissue with a not guilty finding based on the trial court's determination that the FOID act does not apply to guns in the home.

 

The big question is whether the state will appeal that decision to the intermediate level appellate court. As I already noted, the entire issue could end up right back at the Supreme Court.

This seems like a decent interpretation of all of that confusing "mumbo jumbo" about whether or not they they could hear the case.

 

So if the FOID does not apply to the home, how does this person in the case, purchase new ammo, make sure the firearm is working and trains with it (takes it to the range), or purchase a new replacement one for use in the home? They can not do any of those things without a valid FOID, which means the FOID is in the way of "Home use"?

 

Does this also mean that you can not, as an illinois resident go hunting without a FOID?

 

 

It would mean (at best), the FOID is a purchase/transportation permit. It would mean you could let your FOID expire and possess previously acquired firearms/ammo, you just could not bring them beyond your property line without renewing your FOID. If they strike the legal requirement for mere possession in the home, the ISP will truly have a **** show on their hands.

Edited April 2, 2020 at 09:08 PM by crufflesmuth

[mrmagloo]

Where is Skinny when you need him???

[Hatchet]

 

 

The Illinois Supreme Court, in my opinion, did not rule that no FOID is required to have a firearm in your home. The IL Sup. Ct. ruling is on a technical issue that no appeal directly from the trial court to the Supreme Ct. was appropriate here. Generally, when a statute is found unconstitutional, the case is directly appealed to the IL Sup. Ct. However, where the issue could have been decided by the trial court without determining whether the statute is constitutional, then the trial court is limited to just applying the statute. Here, the trial court found that the FOID statute did not apply in the home so the accused could not be prosecuted. The Supreme Ct said that the trial court's job was over once that determination was made and whether the FOID act was constitutional did not need to be addressed by the trial court. Because of that, the IL Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the constitutional question of whether the FOID act is unconstitutional. The IL Supreme Ct also did not have jurisdiction to determine whether the FOID act applies to guns in the home since that is not a constitutional issue that could be appealed directly to the Supreme Ct. So now, the case goes back to the trial court and the decision will reissue with a not guilty finding based on the trial court's determination that the FOID act does not apply to guns in the home.

 

The big question is whether the state will appeal that decision to the intermediate level appellate court. As I already noted, the entire issue could end up right back at the Supreme Court.

This seems like a decent interpretation of all of that confusing "mumbo jumbo" about whether or not they they could hear the case.

 

So if the FOID does not apply to the home, how does this person in the case, purchase new ammo, make sure the firearm is working and trains with it (takes it to the range), or purchase a new replacement one for use in the home? They can not do any of those things without a valid FOID, which means the FOID is in the way of "Home use"?

 

Does this also mean that you can not, as an illinois resident go hunting without a FOID?

 

 

It would mean (at best), the FOID is a purchase/transportation permit. It would mean you could let your FOID expire and possess previously acquired firearms/ammo, you just could not bring them beyond your property line without renewing your FOID. If they strike the legal requirement for mere possession in the home, the ISP will truly have a **** show on their hands.

 

But as soon as you FOID is expired the state police send out to locals to retrieve your firearms and fill out a report till FOID is renewed. I think the IL supreme court just caused more problems for the courts and police than they bargained for.

[mrmagloo]

 

But as soon as you FOID is expired the state police send out to locals to retrieve your firearms and fill out a report till FOID is renewed. I think the IL supreme court just caused more problems for the courts and police than they bargained for.

 

 

 

The courts don't give a crap about what their actions and in-actions cause? No doubt, they just opened a can of worms, but don't count on any enforcement changes. They don't care either. Nor do the legislators. None of these arse whoo's have personal skin or financial interest in the matter. They can play games all day long on the tax payers tab. This thing is not over by a long shot, but the can has gotten kicked for sure.

[Euler]

...

...

The big question is whether the state will appeal that decision to the intermediate level appellate court. As I already noted, the entire issue could end up right back at the Supreme Court.

But as soon as you FOID is expired the state police send out to locals to retrieve your firearms and fill out a report till FOID is renewed. I think the IL supreme court just caused more problems for the courts and police than they bargained for.

 

... or, when the county court dismisses the case or finds her not guilty, will it also order the police to return her gun?

[gunuser17]

The best that can happen out of this case is that the trial court finds her not guilty based on his opinion that the FOID act does not apply to guns in the home. I have no idea whether that is correct or not but that is what is needed now. Then, the state has to appeal and the intermediate appellate court has to find that the trial court was wrong and that the FOID act does apply to guns in the home. That would send the case back to the trial court who could then re-enter the opinion that the law is unconstitutional and the state would then repeat the appeal to the IL Supreme Ct.

 

The best case for this issue would have been (1) a person arrested for properly carrying a firearm in a car locked in the trunk unloaded and in a case on a Illinois state highway by the State Police but not having a FOID card; or (2) as noted above - a purchaser at an Illinois firearm store who was refused because the person did not have a FOID card but was otherwise able to pass a background check and could properly complete a 4473 - then, the only defense most likely would be the constitutionality of the FOID act.

[THE KING]

Where is Skinny when you need him???

Amen to that.

[crufflesmuth]

 

 

But as soon as you FOID is expired the state police send out to locals to retrieve your firearms and fill out a report till FOID is renewed. I think the IL supreme court just caused more problems for the courts and police than they bargained for.

 

 

 

The courts don't give a crap about what their actions and in-actions cause? No doubt, they just opened a can of worms, but don't count on any enforcement changes. They don't care either. Nor do the legislators. None of these arse whoo's have personal skin or financial interest in the matter. They can play games all day long on the tax payers tab. This thing is not over by a long shot, but the can has gotten kicked for sure.

 

 

It's not over. The District Court will simply change their order, they'll say she does not need a FOID for possession in the home and that is where the rubber will hit the road, because the anti-gun forces of this state know, if the possession requirement for a FOID is struck - enforcement of the FOID Act becomes a logistical problem and difficult to do. The only place I could see someone getting successfully prosecuted for a violation (in such circumstances) would be the following:

 

1) Traffic stop in anti-gun town/city

2) A local gun range that 'follows' all law, regulations and rules (basically suburban cook county)

 

So far as I can see, the state needs to appeal this to the appellate-level (once it goes through the District Court again). If they don't, they'll have caselaw build up that will screw them over. So it's either get screwed completely slow with caselaw (which is extremely effective) through this case being remanded, or appeal it (again) and let the chips fall where they may. That's where the state is right now with this case.

[mab22]

 

 

The Illinois Supreme Court, in my opinion, did not rule that no FOID is required to have a firearm in your home. The IL Sup. Ct. ruling is on a technical issue that no appeal directly from the trial court to the Supreme Ct. was appropriate here. Generally, when a statute is found unconstitutional, the case is directly appealed to the IL Sup. Ct. However, where the issue could have been decided by the trial court without determining whether the statute is constitutional, then the trial court is limited to just applying the statute. Here, the trial court found that the FOID statute did not apply in the home so the accused could not be prosecuted. The Supreme Ct said that the trial court's job was over once that determination was made and whether the FOID act was constitutional did not need to be addressed by the trial court. Because of that, the IL Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the constitutional question of whether the FOID act is unconstitutional. The IL Supreme Ct also did not have jurisdiction to determine whether the FOID act applies to guns in the home since that is not a constitutional issue that could be appealed directly to the Supreme Ct. So now, the case goes back to the trial court and the decision will reissue with a not guilty finding based on the trial court's determination that the FOID act does not apply to guns in the home.

 

The big question is whether the state will appeal that decision to the intermediate level appellate court. As I already noted, the entire issue could end up right back at the Supreme Court.

This seems like a decent interpretation of all of that confusing "mumbo jumbo" about whether or not they they could hear the case.

 

So if the FOID does not apply to the home, how does this person in the case, purchase new ammo, make sure the firearm is working and trains with it (takes it to the range), or purchase a new replacement one for use in the home? They can not do any of those things without a valid FOID, which means the FOID is in the way of "Home use"?

 

Does this also mean that you can not, as an illinois resident go hunting without a FOID?

 

 

It would mean (at best), the FOID is a purchase/transportation permit. It would mean you could let your FOID expire and possess previously acquired firearms/ammo, you just could not bring them beyond your property line without renewing your FOID. If they strike the legal requirement for mere possession in the home, the ISP will truly have a **** show on their hands.

 

If New York looses the transport permit case then it gets cut back to a purchase only permit.

 

Does this now mean that Chicago and Cook County ordinances just went out the window?

If FOID does not apply to the HOME, then can they regulate the arms, other than what is federally restricted, you have IN your home?

[lockman]

 

 

 

 

The Illinois Supreme Court, in my opinion, did not rule that no FOID is required to have a firearm in your home. The IL Sup. Ct. ruling is on a technical issue that no appeal directly from the trial court to the Supreme Ct. was appropriate here. Generally, when a statute is found unconstitutional, the case is directly appealed to the IL Sup. Ct. However, where the issue could have been decided by the trial court without determining whether the statute is constitutional, then the trial court is limited to just applying the statute. Here, the trial court found that the FOID statute did not apply in the home so the accused could not be prosecuted. The Supreme Ct said that the trial court's job was over once that determination was made and whether the FOID act was constitutional did not need to be addressed by the trial court. Because of that, the IL Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the constitutional question of whether the FOID act is unconstitutional. The IL Supreme Ct also did not have jurisdiction to determine whether the FOID act applies to guns in the home since that is not a constitutional issue that could be appealed directly to the Supreme Ct. So now, the case goes back to the trial court and the decision will reissue with a not guilty finding based on the trial court's determination that the FOID act does not apply to guns in the home.

 

The big question is whether the state will appeal that decision to the intermediate level appellate court. As I already noted, the entire issue could end up right back at the Supreme Court.

 

 

This seems like a decent interpretation of all of that confusing "mumbo jumbo" about whether or not they they could hear the case.

 

So if the FOID does not apply to the home, how does this person in the case, purchase new ammo, make sure the firearm is working and trains with it (takes it to the range), or purchase a new replacement one for use in the home? They can not do any of those things without a valid FOID, which means the FOID is in the way of "Home use"?

 

Does this also mean that you can not, as an illinois resident go hunting without a FOID?

 

 

 

 

It would mean (at best), the FOID is a purchase/transportation permit. It would mean you could let your FOID expire and possess previously acquired firearms/ammo, you just could not bring them beyond your property line without renewing your FOID. If they strike the legal requirement for mere possession in the home, the ISP will truly have a **** show on their hands.

 

^^^^^^ that is the way the FOID previously worked. As originally passed The FOID act only related to purchase it did not address possession unless you were a prohibited person. I think it was worded that way previously because they saw the constitutional issues involved in a ban on possession by otherwise lawful persons. But now they throw that concern out the window.

 

 

^ this ***

[crufflesmuth]

If the FOID does not apply to your home, it would mean ISP CANNOT demand you to surrender any firearms/ammo that were lawfully acquired. It would mean, they could only send threatening letters detailing how failure to renew could result in your immediate arrest, as soon as you brought said firearms across the property line/dwelling. Of course, that scenario (again) creates a logistical nightmare for FOID enforcement and neuters the FOID altogether, with the State saving face.

 

In such scenario, ISP would be a victim of it's own institutional laziness and that of it's political masters. One expired FOID is easy: but what about an ENTIRE state of expired FOID cards? State and Suburban PD would be hard pressed to enforce FOID Act violations under such scenario. It's certainly possible too. Requiring a FOID for possession of firearms/ammo is what keeps the FOID Act alive. Without it, the FOID falls apart. That's why IL SCOTUS punted this case. Technicalities notwithstanding. Also, if people don't need a FOID for home/dwelling possession, criminal defense lawyers WILL be stretching that definition to include cars pulled over during traffic stops. If that comes to pass, the FOID being required for transport will be an oxy moron at that point.

 

Whatever way you look at this, the state loses pretty damn bad: at what speed that happens is dependent on what they do when this case comes back to the District level.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 3, 2020 at 04:25 AM by crufflesmuth

[kevinmcc]

Todd says Supreme Court found unique way to delay ruling, but shows FOID is on life support.

Edited April 3, 2020 at 04:52 AM by kevinmcc

[burningspear]

The best that can happen out of this case is that the trial court finds her not guilty based on his opinion that the FOID act does not apply to guns in the home. I have no idea whether that is correct or not but that is what is needed now. Then, the state has to appeal and the intermediate appellate court has to find that the trial court was wrong and that the FOID act does apply to guns in the home. That would send the case back to the trial court who could then re-enter the opinion that the law is unconstitutional and the state would then repeat the appeal to the IL Supreme Ct.

 

The best case for this issue would have been (1) a person arrested for properly carrying a firearm in a car locked in the trunk unloaded and in a case on a Illinois state highway by the State Police but not having a FOID card; or (2) as noted above - a purchaser at an Illinois firearm store who was refused because the person did not have a FOID card but was otherwise able to pass a background check and could properly complete a 4473 - then, the only defense most likely would be the constitutionality of the FOID act.

You are absolutely correct. The Illinois Supreme Court did not rule on whether or not a FOID is required to lawfully possess a firearm in the home. The Brown case will not be a vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of the FOID scheme. The trial court will find Defendant Brown not guilty. The State will not appeal, and the case will be over.

[gunuser17]

If there is no subsequent appeal after the trial court enters a new not guilty verdict, the most important thing to remember is that the trial court's finding that the FOID act does not apply in the home is not binding on any other court in Illinois. Later cases may find it informative but judges are free to ignore the finding and I suspect that would happen in Chicago for instance.

[crufflesmuth]

If there is no subsequent appeal after the trial court enters a new not guilty verdict, the most important thing to remember is that the trial court's finding that the FOID act does not apply in the home is not binding on any other court in Illinois. Later cases may find it informative but judges are free to ignore the finding and I suspect that would happen in Chicago for instance.

 

You can bet EVERY criminal defense lawyer will be looking to have that case applied to clients pulled over with guns in their car, in Chicago. I disagree.

[Euler]

 

If there is no subsequent appeal after the trial court enters a new not guilty verdict, the most important thing to remember is that the trial court's finding that the FOID act does not apply in the home is not binding on any other court in Illinois. Later cases may find it informative but judges are free to ignore the finding and I suspect that would happen in Chicago for instance.

You can bet EVERY criminal defense lawyer will be looking to have that case applied to clients pulled over with guns in their car, in Chicago. I disagree.

 

Then it'll be too bad for them that it'll only apply to guns in the home owned by people who are otherwise eligible for a FOID.

[chislinger]

So far as I can see, the state needs to appeal this to the appellate-level (once it goes through the District Court again). If they don't, they'll have caselaw build up that will screw them over. So it's either get screwed completely slow with caselaw (which is extremely effective) through this case being remanded, or appeal it (again) and let the chips fall where they may. That's where the state is right now with this case.

It only becomes binding case law when an appellate court rules. The state can simply let a lower court ruling stand and no case law is created, they lose only that case.

[C0untZer0]

Wasn't there a few cases where Cook County Sheriffs monitored to see if FOIDs expired and then showed up at owners' homes to confiscate guns?

[JTHunter]

 

My interpretation is you can still be convicted for not having a FOID for anything beyond simple possession inside your home, and the case was remanded because striking the entire statute was overkill

Sorry but I can't get my head wrapped around that idea. If it is ok to posses a firearm in the home without a FOID card , then how did the firearm get there ? You can't buy a firearm without a FOID card , it is not legal for someone to loan or give you a firearm without you having a FOID card , and you certainly can't buy any ammo for the firearm without a FOID card.

 

Pure stupidity!!!!!

Papa - nobody ever said that most politicians are all that smart. The majority of the ones in IL-ANNOY just happen to be near the bottom of the scale.

[defaultdotxbe]

Sorry but I can't get my head wrapped around that idea. If it is ok to posses a firearm in the home without a FOID card , then how did the firearm get there ? You can't buy a firearm without a FOID card , it is not legal for someone to loan or give you a firearm without you having a FOID card , and you certainly can't buy any ammo for the firearm without a FOID card.

 

Pure stupidity!!!!!

I already explained my position here, basically it means the mere presence of a firearm isn't sufficient evidence for the state to deduce how it got there (which pretty much should go without saying, but here I am having to say it anyway)

 

Plus there are plenty of ways for the firearm to be there without an intentional crime being committed: Family member had a FOID and passed away. Firearm was purchased very long ago before FOID was a thing. Person moved from out of state with the gun and never got a FOID. Give me some time and I can probably think of more

 

As for ammo, almost any state in the union will sell you ammo without needing to see your FOID

[Tip]

Sorry but I can't get my head wrapped around that idea. If it is ok to posses a firearm in the home without a FOID card , then how did the firearm get there ? You can't buy a firearm without a FOID card , it is not legal for someone to loan or give you a firearm without you having a FOID card , and you certainly can't buy any ammo for the firearm without a FOID card. Pure stupidity!!!!!I already explained my position here, basically it means the mere presence of a firearm isn't sufficient evidence for the state to deduce how it got there (which pretty much should go without saying, but here I am having to say it anyway) Plus there are plenty of ways for the firearm to be there without an intentional crime being committed: Family member had a FOID and passed away. Firearm was purchased very long ago before FOID was a thing. Person moved from out of state with the gun and never got a FOID. Give me some time and I can probably think of more As for ammo, almost any state in the union will sell you ammo without needing to see your FOID

 

Care to explain how to get that ammo from “almost any state that will sell you ammo without needing to see your FOID” to your home without violating the FOID laws on possession of ammo? As soon as you cross state lines with said ammo you violate the law unless you possess a FOID.

 

I know of no mail order firms that will sell to in State residents without proof of FOID (there may be some).

[lockman]

 

Care to explain how to get that ammo from “almost any state that will sell you ammo without needing to see your FOID” to your home without violating the FOID laws on possession of ammo? As soon as you cross state lines with said ammo you violate the law unless you possess a FOID.

 

I know of no mail order firms that will sell to in State residents without proof of FOID (there may be some).

 

Then traveling back with ammo would mean you are committing a crime but an out of state resident going to your home with some ammo is perfectly ok. Talk about the lack of equal protection.

 

 

^ this ***

[Bitter Clinger]

Yes, out of state people have more firearms rights in IL than actual IL residents do...

Go figure.

[Talonap]

 

Care to explain how to get that ammo from “almost any state that will sell you ammo without needing to see your FOID” to your home without violating the FOID laws on possession of ammo? As soon as you cross state lines with said ammo you violate the law unless you possess a FOID.

 

I know of no mail order firms that will sell to in State residents without proof of FOID (there may be some).

Then traveling back with ammo would mean you are committing a crime but an out of state resident going to your home with some ammo is perfectly ok. Talk about the lack of equal protection.

 

 

^ this ***

 

Why would you be committing a crime if you bought some ammo in Indiana and brought it home to IL?

[mrmagloo]

Read 430 ILCS 65 Firearm Owners Identification Act. Section 2 is very clear.

[OneGun]

I curious about how the IL SC would rule on this situation. A mother has a FOID card and owns several firearms. Her son gets released from prison and is now a prohibited person. Mom leaves the house to get groceries and leaves the guns at home. The son is at the home. Is the son now constructively in possession of a firearm as a prohibited person and he is now committing a crime while he sits at home watching a football game?

 

I think this situation is where the constitutionality of the FOID card becomes really murky.

 

I'm not an attorney, but I envision this situation exists in many homes right now.

[davel501]

I curious about how the IL SC would rule on this situation. A mother has a FOID card and owns several firearms. Her son gets released from prison and is now a prohibited person. Mom leaves the house to get groceries and leaves the guns at home. The son is at the home. Is the son now constructively in possession of a firearm as a prohibited person and he is now committing a crime while he sits at home watching a football game?

 

I think this situation is where the constitutionality of the FOID card becomes really murky.

 

I'm not an attorney, but I envision this situation exists in many homes right now.

As long as they are locked up in a way he doesn't have access to them it is fine. If she leaves one out he's taking a ride.