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

[Molly B.]

Vivian Brown case has just been scheduled for oral argument in the Illinois Supreme Court on January 12, 2022 at 9:00AM. 

[ragsbo]

On 12/17/2021 at 7:53 AM, Molly B. said:

Vivian Brown case has just been scheduled for oral argument in the Illinois Supreme Court on January 12, 2021 at 9:00AM. 

2021 or 2022?

[Molly B.]

On 12/17/2021 at 9:48 PM, ragsbo said:

2021 or 2022?

 

 

Well that's the first of many times I will get the new year wrong,  glad to get that one out of the way!

[Plinkermostly]

Covid side effect???

[mab22]

I thought they settled this already?
so which judge will recuse themselves so it can be a split decision and we get no real result?
 

[Euler]

On 12/19/2021 at 10:31 AM, mab22 said:

I thought they settled this already?
...

 

The first trial made a ruling that was overturned by the supreme court on procedural grounds, so the case was sent back to trial.

The second trial made a similar but different ruling with sturdier procedure, which is the one now at the supreme court.

[Molly B.]

Vivian Brown case has been rescheduled to sometime in the March 2022 term

[JTHunter]

On 12/21/2021 at 2:14 PM, Molly B. said:

Vivian Brown case has been rescheduled to sometime in the March 2022 term

 

The "players" keep shifting the goal posts. 🤪😡

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

On 12/26/2021 at 4:27 PM, JTHunter said:

 

The "players" keep shifting the goal posts. 🤪😡

That's pretty much par for course, delay and deny.

[Molly B.]

A new order for briefs has been issued:

 

Order of 12_21_21 (002).pdf

[Euler]

Court order said:

On the Court's own motion; IT IS ORDERED that the parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing ...:

1) whether the circuit court's June 15, 2020, order ... to declare the FOID Card Act unconstitutional exceeds the scope of this Court's mandate .../p>

 

In other words, "do you think we should overrule this declaration of unconstitutionality on procedural grounds, too?"

 

Edited December 27, 2021 at 08:43 PM by Euler

[THE KING]

Sounds like they want to kick the can down the road again 🤬🤬

[Molly B.]

Several of us are of the opinion that the delay is not all bad if it gets us closer to a good ruling in the New York may-issue case the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing . . . a good ruling in that case could potentially be good for the Brown case . . .

[Plinkermostly]

Just a simple: 'Shall not infringe' would do me.  (And strict: text, history, and tradition).

 

That would make for a good New Year!

[Molly B.]

A couple of briefs have been filed and there is a reply brief due from the state this coming Tuesday.

Here are copies of the two briefs filed recently, very interesting that both sides are in agreement that the case should not be dismissed. Nice.

State's Supplemental Brief.pdf Appellate Response Brief (Supp) + covers + COC + NOF.pdf

[Molly B.]

The oral argument in Brown has been rescheduled to the morning of March 16, 2022.

[Texasgrillchef]

I am wondering if the Illinois Supreme Court is intentionally delaying this process due to the NYSPRA v Bruen case in our US Supreme Court. Even though that case is about carrying a handgun OUTSIDE the home, one thing is for certain the opinion will say something about the use of scrutiny, strict or immediate, or the use of Text, History, and Tradition, or some combination thereof. Many cases that don’t have anything to do with carrying a firearm outside the home have been put on hold because of this case. Even a Magazine Ban case at the SCOTUS level has been put on hold because of the NYSPRA case.

 

The Illinois Supreme court maybe hearing oral arguments for this case on March 16th, however,  I would be willing to bet, that they don’t issue an opinion before SCOTUS does.

Edited March 8, 2022 at 02:32 PM by Texasgrillchef

[Texasgrillchef]

On 12/27/2021 at 2:42 PM, Euler said:

 

In other words, "do you think we should overrule this declaration of unconstitutionality on procedural grounds, too?"

 

Almost sounds like that they don’t want to have o make a ruling on the constitutional basis of the FOID act. But would rather issue an opinion that the FOID act does not apply in the home, and that thusly one doesn’t need a FOID to simply posses in the home.

 

It is obvious on several levels that the lower court wants to rule he FOID act unconstitutional, and is doing is best to force the issue with the IL Supreme Court. (JMHO) 

 

Like I said in my previous post.  I also believe they are delaying this case based on the NYSPRA v Bruen case. Because as everyone knows, on can still appeal a State Supreme Court decision to the US Supreme Court.

Edited March 8, 2022 at 02:39 PM by Texasgrillchef

[Silhouette]

I don't pretend to know what the IL Supreme Court intends, but they would be on solid ground trying to create the narrowest possible ruling possible.  That's what courts usually try to do.  In this instance, ruling the FOID unconstitutional as applied to the home would mean that such a license impinges on a the constitutional right to "keep" arms.  However, given the rulings in the seventh circuit (Ezell, etc), there will likely be a problem in that the right to keep arms also implies the right to purchase and practice.  I have to think the the IL Supreme Court has a very difficult task to imagine that a narrow ruling will stay narrow. This may suggest that the narrowest possible ruling is really quite broad -- and therefore cases like NYSRPA which stand to remake federal court opinions are extremely relevant even if this case doesn't go to SCOTUS directly.  

 

This one is almost enough to make jurists regret the backflips done over decades to ignore the clear and plain meaning of the 2nd...  I look forward to reading the ruling in due course.

[Flynn]

On 3/9/2022 at 10:36 AM, Silhouette said:

 I have to think the the IL Supreme Court has a very difficult task to imagine that a narrow ruling will stay narrow.

 

I believe you are correct, there are so many other 'pro' 2nd rulings now that making a narrow 'anti' 2nd ruling that doesn't contradict other rulings is becoming a problem for the courts.  NYSRPA 'should' upend them even further and possible become the next Heller type ruling that sends 'anti' 2nd state courts into tizzies, especially the one that have continued to snub or weasel out of Heller.

[Texasgrillchef]

On 3/9/2022 at 11:36 AM, Silhouette said:

I don't pretend to know what the IL Supreme Court intends, but they would be on solid ground trying to create the narrowest possible ruling possible.  That's what courts usually try to do.  In this instance, ruling the FOID unconstitutional as applied to the home would mean that such a license impinges on a the constitutional right to "keep" arms.  However, given the rulings in the seventh circuit (Ezell, etc), there will likely be a problem in that the right to keep arms also implies the right to purchase and practice.  I have to think the the IL Supreme Court has a very difficult task to imagine that a narrow ruling will stay narrow. This may suggest that the narrowest possible ruling is really quite broad -- and therefore cases like NYSRPA which stand to remake federal court opinions are extremely relevant even if this case doesn't go to SCOTUS directly.  

 

This one is almost enough to make jurists regret the backflips done over decades to ignore the clear and plain meaning of the 2nd...  I look forward to reading the ruling in due course.

 

On 3/10/2022 at 3:04 PM, Flynn said:

 

I believe you are correct, there are so many other 'pro' 2nd rulings now that making a narrow 'anti' 2nd ruling that doesn't contradict other rulings is becoming a problem for the courts.  NYSRPA 'should' upend them even further and possible become the next Heller type ruling that sends 'anti' 2nd state courts into tizzies, especially the one that have continued to snub or weasel out of Heller.

considering they are hearing the case tomorrow. Here is what I think.

 

They will hear the case…. And then hold off on their opinion until SCOTUS issues their opinion on the NYSPRA. I don’t really think they are wanting to jump the gun. 
 

Especially since it is pretty much widely accepted that SCOTUS will issue some form of opinion on the use of scrutiny, and how it’s to be used in 2A cases. As well as the opinion that is written on one’s right to carry/posses a firearm outside the confines of one’s home.

 

IL waiting 90 -120 days to issue an opinion is t out of the ordinary.

[illinois_buckeye]

Hopefully they do declare the foid unconstitutional.  I get we are only talking 10 bucks, but you shouldn’t have to pay to exercise a federal constitutional right I don’t think.  You wonder with the US Supreme Court if they will go any further than just striking down may issue laws.

[Euler]

On 3/15/2022 at 7:26 PM, illinois_buckeye said:

Hopefully they do declare the foid unconstitutional.  ...

 

I think that it's worth remembering that this case is only about keeping a firearm in the home. The court could still rule that it's only unconstitutional to require a FOID to purchase a firearm -- possibly for the home -- and/or keep a firearm in the home and/or purchase ammo, or that it's constitutional for all current purposes, including purchasing a firearm to keep in the home, but that having to pay a fee for it is not, like registering as a voter doesn't involve a fee. I would expect the court to rule as narrowly as reasonably possible to toss the case against Brown.

[Molly B.]

Oral arguments are live streaming now

https://livestream.com/blueroomstream/events/10218081

[bmyers]

What time frame, I clicked on the link and it shows over 2 hours of video

 

 

Found it 1:27 time frame

Edited March 16, 2022 at 05:16 PM by bmyers

[bmyers]

Items I noted:

 

State Counsel

• The State needs the FOID card and it is a minimal burden for a person to apply
• The State Counsel stated to his knowledge FOID cards are going out in 30 days; the FOID card is easy and quick to get
• Chicago and Cook County says they need the FOID card so everyone needs a FOID card
• The State stated everybody in a home and that has access to a firearm in the house should have a FOID card
• This only applies to this defendant 
• If the question is about how the FOID card works, then it needs to be remanded back to lower court so data can be gathered to show how well it works
• The case isn't about a law abiding citizen, but about a person who admitted that she wasn't following the law by not applying for a FOID card

Defense Counsel

• FOID card is not a minimal burden and the failure to have one even though would be legal to have a firearm, the penalty is great
• Gun control laws were based on racisms
• Only two States require FOID cards demonstrates the novelty of the FOID restriction
• The State has the burden to show the FOID law is Constitutional
• The FOID law is not longstanding and not grounded in history
• The State is just tossing data and regulations out there hoping that some thing will stick; counsel went through several cases cited by the State to show they don't apply to this case

Judges

• Asked why it is okay to cast such a broad net over everyone when it is small group you are looking at (felons and mental ill)
• Judge asked if there was grounds for them to be back hearing this case since they had already ruled on it and that the case shouldn't of been brought back since it was already ruled unconsutitional
•  Are there other ways for the State to meet their goal of stopping felons and mental ill from getting guns since only two States have FOID cards?
• Questioned if the counsel has his client best interest at heart and wanted to know how he would defend this if it was sent back
• Asked if the State presented evidence to defend the FOID law

The Justices seem to ask few questions to the defense counsel. Although, it is the burden of proof on the State. 

Edited March 16, 2022 at 06:16 PM by bmyers

[Molly B.]

Good summary.

[Flynn]

I really hope the court sees the light and the tide rolling in that the 2nd is and aways has been a individual civil right that state and federal governments have blatently infringed upon for decades because they could, not because it was Constitutional to do so.

[illinois_buckeye]

Agreed.  What are we at half the nation has gone to constitutional carry? Seems like a lot of things positive for gun owners in federal courts lately.  

[Texasgrillchef]

Molly,

 

Do you expect a rulling before or after SCOTUS issues their rulling in NYSPRA v Bruen?