Jump to content

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


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

On 6/16/2022 at 9:39 AM, cls74 said:

Was a lot of speculation they would not issue their opinion until after SCOTUS ruled on the NY case. Being that is not the case, is it any indication they already know the SCOTUS opinion even though it hasn't been released? I mean, if a clerk can leak the Roe vs Wade draft, what's to stop state Supreme courts of learning an opinion before it is released?

 

My guess, they do not have any great insight, but it provides them away of avoiding dealing with the issue for now. 

 

The blamed everything on the lower court and the process. 

 

Then if SCOTUS makes a ruling and it impacts the FOID Act, it was taken out of their hands.

 

So, it appears like a win-win for IL Supreme Court. 

 

Yet, I'm not a lawyer and just voicing my two cents.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the question now is what’s next?

 

Seems to me, when I have looked and I could be wrong. But the state has held back on arresting and charging others similar to Brown for the same offense as What Brown was charged with. Thus for the time being making it somewhat unenforceable.

 

I know if I were charged with the same offense Brown was, I would have my lawyer put my case on hold pending resolution of the Brown case, or have it dismissed because of the Brown case.

 

Im not for sure why the IL Supreme Court didn’t simply rule on the  constitutionality of the FOID act like both sides were wanting them to do.

 

Now it’s remanded back… I wonder what the next step would be.

 

Didn’t the lower court rule that it was unconstitutional? Did they vacate that judgment? I am so confused now. Seems to me like what they really want is the lower court to dismiss the case so that they don’t have to rule it unconstitutional. In which case would that NOT set precedent to dismiss all similar cases in the future, thus making it unenforceable? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2022 at 10:39 AM, cls74 said:

Was a lot of speculation they would not issue their opinion until after SCOTUS ruled on the NY case. ...

 

Such speculation was misplaced, at best. The NY case is about may-issue vs shall-issue carry licenses. Brown is about keeping a firearm in the home. There's no overlap. Besides, IL is already shall-issue. The NY case is only going to affect the 6 states that are may-issue (except maybe stopping any other from becoming may-issue in the future).

 

On 6/16/2022 at 11:04 AM, Molly B. said:

Justice Michael Burke wrote the dissenting opinion - this is the second dissenting opinion he has written that involves the Second Amendment. ...

 

... although he doesn't actually express an opinion on the right to keep arms itself. He just chastises the majority for punting.

 

As I read it:

 

The Illinois Supreme Court majority said that in Brown I the White County Court had the authority to dismiss the case against Brown on statutory grounds and did not need to dismiss it on constitutional grounds, thus the dismissal was a procedural error. The Illinois Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case back to White County Court, which under a different judge first followed the Illinois Supreme Court's directions, but then vacated its own dismissal at the defendant's request to rule on the constitutional issue again.

 

The majority continues that the defense had its relief when the White County Court had dismissed the case the second time, then on statutory grounds, and still did not need to rule on the constitutional issue. Thus the constitutional ruling from While County Court in Brown II was again a procedural error. Further, since the constitutional ruling was unnecessary, the majority asserts that the Illinois Supreme Court has no basis to review the dismissal itself, so it is vacating the constitutional ruling and sending the case back to White County again.

 

In Burke's dissent, he points out that the majority never expressed an opinion on the statutory basis itself and that the defense questioned that basis. The White County Court agreed with the defense that there was no statutory basis for dismissal, so it ruled on the constitutional basis.

 

I would like to know what the majority considers to be the statutory basis on which the county court could dismiss the charges. The statute says Brown needs a FOID to keep a firearm. Brown didn't have a FOID. Therefore statutorily Brown is guilty. If there were a statutory way for Brown to avoid the necessity of a FOID to keep a firearm, we could all be using it to avoid the apparent statutory necessity of a FOID (except maybe as a license to acquire, which would be a different case).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2022 at 11:34 AM, Euler said:

 

Such speculation was misplaced, at best. The NY case is about may-issue vs shall-issue carry licenses. Brown is about keeping a firearm in the home. There's no overlap. Besides, IL is already shall-issue. The NY case is only going to affect the 6 states that are may-issue (except maybe stopping any other from becoming may-issue in the future).

 

 

... although he doesn't actually express an opinion on the right to keep arms itself. He just chastises the majority for punting.

 

As I read it:

 

The Illinois Supreme Court majority said that in Brown I the White County Court had the authority to dismiss the case against Brown on statutory grounds and did not need to dismiss it on constitutional grounds, thus the dismissal was a procedural error. The Illinois Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case back to White County Court, which under a different judge first followed the Illinois Supreme Court's directions, but then vacated its own dismissal at the defendant's request to rule on the constitutional issue again.

 

The majority continues that the defense had its relief when the White County Court had dismissed the case the second time, then on statutory grounds, and still did not need to rule on the constitutional issue. Thus the constitutional ruling from While County Court in Brown II was again a procedural error. Further, since the constitutional ruling was unnecessary, the majority asserts that the Illinois Supreme Court has no basis to review the dismissal itself, so it is vacating the constitutional ruling and sending the case back to White County again.

 

In Burke's dissent, he points out that the majority never expressed an opinion on the statutory basis itself and that the defense questioned that basis. The White County Court agreed with the defense that there was no statutory basis for dismissal, so it ruled on the constitutional basis.

 

I would like to know what the majority considers to be the statutory basis on which the county court could dismiss the charges. The statute says Brown needs a FOID to keep a firearm. Brown didn't have a FOID. Therefore statutorily Brown is guilty. If there were a statutory way for Brown to avoid the necessity of a FOID to keep a firearm, we could all be using it to avoid the apparent statutory necessity of a FOID (except maybe as a license to acquire, which would be a different case).


Your forgetting one big point.

 

1. SCOTUS is NOT required to just answer the question that was presented to them. They may issue an opinion related to the issue as well. 
 

Thus SCOTUS can and IMHO will issue an opinion on the using of Scrutiny, Text, History and Tradition and how that all is to be used by federal and state courts in determining the constitutionality of a law under the 2A’s domain.

 

However, after reading the opinion of the IL Supreme Court. They didn’t even take up the question of the  constitutionality  of the FOID act. 
 

In fact they refused to do so, and didn’t even like that the circuit court below them did at anytime. They seem to want the circuit court to dismiss on other grounds that was first stated by the first ruling of the circuit court. A major mistake by that judge who believes that the FOID act was unconstitutional. He should have never entered any other reasoning.

 

Seems to me this case is closed, with the case against Brown being dismissed. Which I doubt will be appealed by the state of Illinois.

 

Which leads me to believe that future similar cases will be dismissed as well. Making it unenforceable. However it will be left up to the circuit courts in future cases.

 

Thus Brown will not be the so called test case. It will now rely on the next circuit court to enter a defense of  unconstitutionality, and start the process all over again. 
 

knowing how prior cases can be used as precedent for future cases.

 

I am wondering how this case can and will be used by others who have been similarity charged with violating the FOID act the same way Brown has violated the FOID act.

 

Brown having the charges and case dismissed, basically without any true valid reasoning, make it unenforceable?

 

Edited by Texasgrillchef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like what needs to be done, is a civil case needs to be filed against Illinois claiming that the FOID act is unconstitutional as applied.

 

Probably not at state level, but in federal district court. Especially since the district court for Illinois is filled with conservative justices.

 

Since I read the opinion, now as the circuit court must now dismiss Browns criminal charges, and may not rule the act as unconstitutional. Thus now closing the case, unless the state appeals that the case should not be dismissed for the reasons it was. I highly doubt that the state will appeal, as it got what it wanted. The FOID act wasn’t ruled unconstitutional, even though it wasn’t ruled constitutional either.

 

In fact the IL Supreme Court worked it so that this case can apparently never be used to question the constitutionality of the FOID act.

 

Sadly this was caused by mistakes on and of both the circuit court judges and the defense.

Edited by Texasgrillchef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the problem being with paragraph 6 of this written opinion.  

 

The circuit Court dismissed the case based on their analysis of legislative intent of the FOID act.  They believe that the intent was that a FOID card is not required in the home. 

 

Therefore Ms Brown apparently didn't have to challenge the constitutionally of the FOID act as her case was dismissed. 

 

To me I disagree with the circuit courts opinion on the legislative intent.  The FOID act is pretty clear on the requirement of having a FOID card in this State. Plus the home is not listed in the exemption section of 65-2 of the FOID act. 

 

IANAL nor a constitutional scholar.  Just my humble opinion on what I read. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2022 at 12:18 PM, THE KING said:

I see the problem being with paragraph 6 of this written opinion.  

 

The circuit Court dismissed the case based on their analysis of legislative intent of the FOID act.  They believe that the intent was that a FOID card is not required in the home. 

 

Therefore Ms Brown apparently didn't have to challenge the constitutionally of the FOID act as her case was dismissed. 

 

To me I disagree with the circuit courts opinion on the legislative intent.  The FOID act is pretty clear on the requirement of having a FOID card in this State. Plus the home is not listed in the exemption section of 65-2 of the FOID act. 

 

IANAL nor a constitutional scholar.  Just my humble opinion on what I read. 


I do not disagree with you. Yet that is what was found and therefore the reason her case was dismissed.

 

What the state probably doesn’t realize… is now this case can be used as precedent for dismissing future cases for the same reason lack of legislative intent.

 

However, I doubt that we will get much flack from the state about it, unless more and more cases end up being dismissed for this reason. THEN the state might appeal. If they do, then the defense hopefully will bring up the issue of  constitutionality. 
 

Suffice it to say, that it will take another case to question the Constitutionality of the FOID act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2022 at 12:18 PM, THE KING said:

I see the problem being with paragraph 6 of this written opinion.  

 

The circuit Court dismissed the case based on their analysis of legislative intent of the FOID act.  They believe that the intent was that a FOID card is not required in the home. 

 

Therefore Ms Brown apparently didn't have to challenge the constitutionally of the FOID act as her case was dismissed. 

 

To me I disagree with the circuit courts opinion on the legislative intent.  The FOID act is pretty clear on the requirement of having a FOID card in this State. Plus the home is not listed in the exemption section of 65-2 of the FOID act. 

 

IANAL nor a constitutional scholar.  Just my humble opinion on what I read. 

How do they expect you to buy a firearm for the home, or even the ammo, without a FOID? 
How do you get it from the store to the home without being in violation ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2022 at 6:05 PM, mab22 said:

How do they expect you to buy a firearm for the home, or even the ammo, without a FOID? 
How do you get it from the store to the home without being in violation ?

 

Yep, same thoughts I have.  Their analysis of the legislative intent actually raises more questions than answers. What about your own land. How about your legal dwelling.  Or your fixed place of business.  Where is the line going to be drawn. Why did they limit it to the home.  

 

When you start thinking about 24-1, the UUW statute.  How does this precedent affect that or does it.  

 

🤬🤬 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2022 at 6:20 PM, THE KING said:

Yep, same thoughts I have.  Their analysis of the legislative intent actually raises more questions than answers. What about your own land. How about your legal dwelling.  Or your fixed place of business.  Where is the line going to be drawn. Why did they limit it to the home.  

 

When you start thinking about 24-1, the UUW statute.  How does this precedent affect that or does it.  

 

🤬🤬 

 

 

 

On 6/16/2022 at 6:05 PM, mab22 said:

How do they expect you to buy a firearm for the home, or even the ammo, without a FOID? 
How do you get it from the store to the home without being in violation ?

 


It’s called getting it from another state before you move to Illinois, or inheriting one, or being given one as a gift. Or maybe you obtained it before the FOID act was enacted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2022 at 9:28 PM, Texasgrillchef said:

 


It’s called getting it from another state before you move to Illinois, or inheriting one, or being given one as a gift. Or maybe you obtained it before the FOID act was enacted.

 

Yet the questions does bring up some other answered questions.

 

If you buy a new home, do you have to leave the guns in your current residents or can you legally transport them to your new home without a FOID?

 

If you get your ammo from another State and bringing it back to your home in Illinois where you aren't required to have  FOID in your home, but must have a FOID to get the ammo to the location where you aren't required to have a FOID?

 

If they are basing the intent of the legislative e body, then NO one would be required to have FOID except criminals and mentally ill, who can't get them. If you asked those that based the FOID Act, the INTENT was to keep guns from criminals and mentally ill. Well, if we are basing the current decision off of intent, you are not a criminal or mentally ill, then you don't need a FOID card because the INTENT wasn't for law abiding citizens to denied their rights, but to stop criminals and the mentally ill. 

 

This ruling brings up way more questions than it answers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2022 at 5:56 AM, bmyers said:

 

Yet the questions does bring up some other answered questions.

 

If you buy a new home, do you have to leave the guns in your current residents or can you legally transport them to your new home without a FOID?

 

If you get your ammo from another State and bringing it back to your home in Illinois where you aren't required to have  FOID in your home, but must have a FOID to get the ammo to the location where you aren't required to have a FOID?

 

If they are basing the intent of the legislative e body, then NO one would be required to have FOID except criminals and mentally ill, who can't get them. If you asked those that based the FOID Act, the INTENT was to keep guns from criminals and mentally ill. Well, if we are basing the current decision off of intent, you are not a criminal or mentally ill, then you don't need a FOID card because the INTENT wasn't for law abiding citizens to denied their rights, but to stop criminals and the mentally ill. 

 

This ruling brings up way more questions than it answers. 

 

That's the idea...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly to get laws overturned in the courts requires money that the poor doesn’t have. Those groups that help support our rights only have limited funds and can’t fight every valid cause. As a result, many laws stand unchallenged.

 

Hopefully that will start changing soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we're overthinking this. If the Supreme Court is planning to address scrutiny in Bruen, particularly if they decide upon a particularly stringent form of scrutiny, that will open the floodgates of litigation nationwide, which I suspect will lead to a "slowly at first, then all at once" deluge of pro-gun court decisions.

 

Take note of the FPC's Cook County AWB lawsuit that was filed recently. What struck me was how odd and out-of-the-blue it seemed. There didn't seem to be much of a reason for doing so beyond a desire to challenge the constitutionality of the law, which didn't make a lot of sense on its own unless they suspected that the odds were in their favor. Lawsuits ain't cheap, and their people must be keenly aware of that. I don't believe they'd waste the capital unless they believed they had a fighting chance of succeeding.

 

If Bruen indeed answers the question of scrutiny, that will give us the language we need to challenge the constitutionality of the FOID Act, regardless of how Brown is settled.

 

And that's doubly true if the court goes as far as to declare the entire Sullivan Act unconstitutional. Just look at the leaked Dobbs ruling: Most conservatives suspected they'd uphold the Mississippi law while perhaps striking Texas's ban, and what actually happened was something even the most optimistic of conservatives would never dare hope for: A full repeal of Roe, at least as it stood at the time of the leak. There's nothing to say they wouldn't go as far with Bruen, either.

 

Regardless, I think the FOID Act is eventually going to be declared unconstitutional, however long that takes. And I suspect that the State Supreme Court knows this and is attempting to delay the inevitable, or at least punt it and let some other court address the question.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also suspect that the Cook County AWB and magazine bans will be declared unconstitutional at some point.

 

And the reason I mention the Sullivan Act is because that law is tremendously problematic and prone to abuse, to say nothing of the current discussions in the New York State legislature about what sort of restrictions they'll try passing in response to Bruen.

 

The justices have to know that merely stopping at the question of may-issue versus shall-issue will inevitably create a whole new series of constitutional problems when New York finds novel ways of restricting the Second Amendment in a manner that doesn't strictly violate Bruen, and that they'll be seriously tempted to abuse the Sullivan Act as a workaround. It would simply be better to declare the whole law unconstitutional, which, if that were to happen, opens an avenue to have the FOID Act declared unconstitutional on the same grounds.

Edited by MrTriple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2022 at 1:13 AM, MrTriple said:

I think we're overthinking this. If the Supreme Court is planning to address scrutiny in Bruen, particularly if they decide upon a particularly stringent form of scrutiny, that will open the floodgates of litigation nationwide, which I suspect will lead to a "slowly at first, then all at once" deluge of pro-gun court decisions.

 

Take note of the FPC's Cook County AWB lawsuit that was filed recently. What struck me was how odd and out-of-the-blue it seemed. There didn't seem to be much of a reason for doing so beyond a desire to challenge the constitutionality of the law, which didn't make a lot of sense on its own unless they suspected that the odds were in their favor. Lawsuits ain't cheap, and their people must be keenly aware of that. I don't believe they'd waste the capital unless they believed they had a fighting chance of succeeding.

 

If Bruen indeed answers the question of scrutiny, that will give us the language we need to challenge the constitutionality of the FOID Act, regardless of how Brown is settled.

 

And that's doubly true if the court goes as far as to declare the entire Sullivan Act unconstitutional. Just look at the leaked Dobbs ruling: Most conservatives suspected they'd uphold the Mississippi law while perhaps striking Texas's ban, and what actually happened was something even the most optimistic of conservatives would never dare hope for: A full repeal of Roe, at least as it stood at the time of the leak. There's nothing to say they wouldn't go as far with Bruen, either.

 

Regardless, I think the FOID Act is eventually going to be declared unconstitutional, however long that takes. And I suspect that the State Supreme Court knows this and is attempting to delay the inevitable, or at least punt it and let some other court address the question.

 


 

Keep in mind the following… because your not to far off from the truth of what will happen.

 

1. There are currently 4 cases at SCOTUS level that they themselves out on hold pending the NYSPRA case.

 

2. At the circuit court level, there are an additional 10-15 cases currently on hold pending the NYSPRA opinion. As well as several other cases not yet on hold that will be impacted by the same NYSPRA ruling.

 

3. At the district court level, there are about 30-40 cases on hold pending the release of the NYSPRA opinion.

 

4. State level courts there are a total of about 30-40 additional cases that will also be impacted by the NYSPRA opinion as well. Some are on hold. This is in about 25-30 states as well.

 

So all together we have well over 100 cases pending on hold, &/or will be impacted to some degree by the NYSPRA opinion as well as opinions of other cases above them, such as the 4 other cases on hold by SCOTUS.

 

So in the next few months, and definitely by the end of the year you will start to see all these cases being cleared up and finalized. The Dominoes will be falling… 

 

Will new cases be filed? Absolutely! I know of at least 10-15 cases that are ready to be filed, after some editing is done based on what the NYSPRA opinion actually says.

 

FYI At least 10 if not more of those cases filed at district level, &/or state level have actually been filed within the last 30 days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See my previous post above….

 

However, keep in mind that once SCOTUS rules that a AWB or Magazine Ban as unconstitutional, that any laws federal or state, or even local become immediately

UNENFORCEABLE by any LEO, or Prosecutor or any local, state, or federal court in the land.

 

Any prosecutor or LEO who attempts to enforce such a unconstitutional law can be sued for malice.

Edited by Texasgrillchef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2022 at 1:26 PM, Texasgrillchef said:

However, keep in mind that once SCOTUS rules that a AWB or Magazine Ban as unconstitutional, that any laws federal or state, or even local become immediately

UNENFORCEABLE by any LEO, or Prosecutor or any local, state, or federal court in the land.

 

Any prosecutor or LEO who attempts to enforce such a unconstitutional law can be sued for malice.

 

How certain are you of both of those statements??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not agree that it is so clear cut as the two statements on unenforceability and malice.  First, only the NY law was at issue in the Supreme Court that that case has been remanded to the lower courts to readdress the statute taking into account the Supreme Court's ruling.  No other statute is automatically unconstitutional, especially in another state that is worded differently.  Now, if Chicago/Illinois had a statute identical to the NY law, a DA obviously look pretty bad if he tried to enforce the law before the case in NY is addressed on remand.  But, there probably is no other law in any state that is identical to the NY provision.  You can expect every restrictive state has draft statutes already prepared to try to deal with this decision.  California, I saw, already has said that is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that there will be ever increasing restricted locaitons, types of guns, and magazine capacity requirements until the Supreme Court actually slaps one or all of those down.  I suspect that the four or five cases being held at the Supreme Court will be sent back down to the appellate courts for reconsideration taking into account this new Supreme Court decision.  What will really be interesting is how contorted theh 9th Circiuit's analysis will be to maintain their record of finding gun laws constitutional while pretending to follow the Supreme Court.  I expect most if not all of the held cases will find themselves back in the Supreme Court in a year or two if they are simply remanded at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2022 at 6:56 AM, bmyers said:

It will be interesting to see how they try to get around it. 

If we're talking about the SCOTUS case, remember how Chicago reacted to the McDonald ruling, with reopening the required registration as well as requiring a Chicago Firearms License,
only available after training including live fire, while civilian ranges were banned in the city, giving us Ezell v Chicago. (Ezell I)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is one other thing to keep in mind in regards to issuing permits from previously “May issue” states.

 

If a state were to deny permit applications for the reason of not providing “good and justifiable” reasons…. And they deny say 5 or 10 thousand of them. They might have issues in the court for doing that.

 

however, it will be about 90 days before we know for sure if they have in fact started to issue permits. They may say they will, but until then do we won’t be for sure.

 

hopefully they will, they should. but as we know not everyone does what they should.

 

Now as far as this case goes, people v brown. I highly doubt at this point this case will get any parts enjoined, or ruled invalidated from being Unconstitutional.

 

It will take another case, a cival lawsuit suing Illinois on all or parts of FOID as being unconstitutional.

 

Who will take up that case? How long will it take? Eventually yes.

 

As far as I can tell, no one has filed suit yet.

 

Also keep in mind, that the four cases that was previously on Hold pending on NYSPRA case have now gone to todays conference (6-29-2022). So we should have answers on those cases tomorrow. Maybe Friday, but I suspect tomorrow.

 

ANJRPC v Platkin, New Jersey Mag capacity ban

Duncan v Bonta, California Mag Cap Ban

Young V Hawaii, open carry permitting

Bianchi V Frosh, Maryland AWB and Mag Cap ban

 

Those 4 cases will make huge impacts nationwide on any state or city that have a AWB and Mag Cap ban.

 

Young May end up bringing open carry to those states and areas that don’t allow it. Such as New York, California, Florida, and Illinois! (I might be missing somewhere too)

 

Reciprocity &/or lacking the issuance of a non-Resident permit is about to be challenged in court. Illinois will be challenged for only doing 6 states, and not all 50.

 

Many other areas and laws will be challenged soon as well.

 

Just wait… Patience grasshopper!
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2022 at 3:06 PM, Texasgrillchef said:

Reciprocity &/or lacking the issuance of a non-Resident permit is about to be challenged in court. Illinois will be challenged for only doing 6 states, and not all 50.

 

Hearing rumors that West Virginia is asking Maryland for reciprocity and if they don't respond they will be filing against Maryland which will go straight to SCOTUS

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...