Jump to content

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


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

35 CONCLUSION ¶ 36 The circuit court’s ruling that section 2(a)(1) of the FOID Card Act is unconstitutional as applied was not necessary to the resolution of this case. Therefore, we remand this cause to the circuit court. We direct that the order entered by the circuit court on February 14, 2018, be vacated. We further direct that the October 16, 2018, judgment order dismissing defendant’s information be vacated and then modified to exclude the ruling that section 2(a)(1) is unconstitutional. The - 13 -modified order is thereupon to be reentered.

 

37 Vacated and remanded with directions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JUSTICE KARMEIER, dissenting: ¶ 39 The majority’s decision resolves this appeal based on an issue no one has raised, decides the issue through misapplication of principles we have no reason to discuss, and remands the case to the circuit court for entry of an order that is clearly meritless and serves no purpose. Neither the parties nor the interests of justice will be served by this unexpected and pointless exercise. I therefore respectfully dissent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the case goes back to the trial court, the opinion is modified as directed by the IL Supreme Court. The case then goes up on appeal to an intermediate appellate court as to whether the FOID act applies in the home if the State appeals. Assuming the state appeals, the appellate court either affirms the finding or reverses the trial court and finds that the FOID act does apply in the home. Then, a potential appeal to IL Supreme Court who could find FOID does not apply in home - ending case. If Supreme Court finds that FOID does apply in home, then I believe that the trial court could ultimately revisit and re-enter the unconstitutional finding and then that goes up to the Supreme Court again. A long and winding road.

Edited by gunuser17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

From my understanding:

the two circuit court judgments are to be vacated and the court shall find Ms. Brown not guilty by claiming the FOID Act does not apply to her in her home - but not on the basis of saying the FOID Act is unconstitutional.

 

So does this mean we can all let our FOID cards expire?

 

IANAL, but to be honest, it sounds like the only way to get a case back in front of them would be to take a firearm outside the home without a foid. I’m seriously considering doing that. The getting arrested for it is the hard part. Haha.

 

If I went to a range downstate without a foid and asked to shoot do you think they’d call the cops on me? :rofl:

Edited by PewPewBangBang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my understanding:

the two circuit court judgments are to be vacated and the court shall find Ms. Brown not guilty by claiming the FOID Act does not apply to her in her home - but not on the basis of saying the FOID Act is unconstitutional.

 

Wasn't expecting the FOID to be nixed; I was expecting them to strike the possession requirement though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Jeez, how can anyone suggest that the law that was used to prosecute someone is good to stand, but you cannot convict her for breaching it? What the hey!!! W-T-F kind of Illinois Democratic Machine brain dead logic is that?

Very Good Point.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Jeez, how can anyone suggest that the law that was used to prosecute someone is good to stand, but you cannot convict her for breaching it? What the hey!!! W-T-F kind of Illinois Democratic Machine brain dead logic is that?

Very Good Point.

 

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

 

 

Typically, if portions of a law are unconstitutional, the law is striken, and it is up to the legislators to craft a new law that is compliant. To suggest portions of the law don't pass muster, but leave it alone and just rule the defendant not guilty is crazy.

 

The take away of their action here suggests, you do NOT need a FOID if you have firearms in your home. However, they purposely left off the part about how one would acquire a gun to bring into your home for said self-defense, and/or how you would obtain ammo as well. Clearly, they are smart enough to understand what they were doing.

 

Essentially, this ruling was crap shows to what lengths card carrying Democrats will go to support their Anti-2A keystone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

From my understanding:

the two circuit court judgments are to be vacated and the court shall find Ms. Brown not guilty by claiming the FOID Act does not apply to her in her home - but not on the basis of saying the FOID Act is unconstitutional.

 

So does this mean we can all let our FOID cards expire?

IANAL, but to be honest, it sounds like the only way to get a case back in front of them would be to take a firearm outside the home without a foid. I’m seriously considering doing that. The getting arrested for it is the hard part. Haha.

 

If I went to a range downstate without a foid and asked to shoot do you think they’d call the cops on me? :rofl:

. You can shoot at our local range without a foid as long as you go through their training course and background check
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ideal challenge to this would be someone whose weapons were seized for an expired FOID due to the state slowness. If that person exists the FOID is dead.

 

Well, in a similar vein, it would be interesting on how things would play out for someone who just completed their CCL renewal with retraining and all, but got locked out from renewing their FOID and as a result, lost the CCL too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

Typically, if portions of a law are unconstitutional, the law is striken, and it is up to the legislators to craft a new law that is compliant. To suggest portions of the law don't pass muster, but leave it alone and just rule the defendant not guilty is crazy.

 

The take away of their action here suggests, you do NOT need a FOID if you have firearms in your home. However, they purposely left off the part about how one would acquire a gun to bring into your home for said self-defense, and/or how you would obtain ammo as well. Clearly, they are smart enough to understand what they were doing.

 

Essentially, this ruling was crap shows to what lengths card carrying Democrats will go to support their Anti-2A keystone.

 

My understanding is the opposite, severability doctrine is the standard and only an inseverability clause would actually necessitate the striking of the entire law (although its sometimes done anyway, when no part of the law is found to be effectively severable) A recent example are the SCOTUS rulings on the Affordable Care Act and the Voting Rights Act, where they only struck portions of the laws

 

As for getting the gun to your house, basically it means that prosecutors would need specific evidence of how you obtained the gun, simply possessing it isn't sufficient evidence to prove a crime

Edited by defaultdotxbe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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

Typically, if portions of a law are unconstitutional, the law is striken, and it is up to the legislators to craft a new law that is compliant. To suggest portions of the law don't pass muster, but leave it alone and just rule the defendant not guilty is crazy.

 

The take away of their action here suggests, you do NOT need a FOID if you have firearms in your home. However, they purposely left off the part about how one would acquire a gun to bring into your home for said self-defense, and/or how you would obtain ammo as well. Clearly, they are smart enough to understand what they were doing.

 

Essentially, this ruling was crap shows to what lengths card carrying Democrats will go to support their Anti-2A keystone.

 

My understanding is the opposite, severability doctrine is the standard and only an inseverability clause would actually necessitate the striking of the entire law (although its sometimes done anyway, when no part of the law is found to be effectively severable) A recent example are the SCOTUS rulings on the Affordable Care Act and the Voting Rights Act, where they only struck portions of the laws

 

As for getting the gun to your house, basically it means that prosecutors would need specific evidence of how you obtained the gun, simply possessing it isn't sufficient evidence to prove a crime

 

 

If I understand this correctly, that would mean you could posses any guns/ammo you bought with your previously valid FOID, you just couldn't bring them outside the home unless you renewed your FOID/CCL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ideal challenge to this would be someone whose weapons were seized for an expired FOID due to the state slowness. If that person exists the FOID is dead.

 

I’m wondering how good a case would be if the person didn’t have a FOID but was qualified for one, and had applied for it more than 30 days ago but got pulled over and arrested transporting a firearm between property in WI and property in IL. I feel like that could be a winner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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

Typically, if portions of a law are unconstitutional, the law is striken, and it is up to the legislators to craft a new law that is compliant. To suggest portions of the law don't pass muster, but leave it alone and just rule the defendant not guilty is crazy.

 

The take away of their action here suggests, you do NOT need a FOID if you have firearms in your home. However, they purposely left off the part about how one would acquire a gun to bring into your home for said self-defense, and/or how you would obtain ammo as well. Clearly, they are smart enough to understand what they were doing.

 

Essentially, this ruling was crap shows to what lengths card carrying Democrats will go to support their Anti-2A keystone.

 

My understanding is the opposite, severability doctrine is the standard and only an inseverability clause would actually necessitate the striking of the entire law (although its sometimes done anyway, when no part of the law is found to be effectively severable) A recent example are the SCOTUS rulings on the Affordable Care Act and the Voting Rights Act, where they only struck portions of the laws

 

As for getting the gun to your house, basically it means that prosecutors would need specific evidence of how you obtained the gun, simply possessing it isn't sufficient evidence to prove a crime

 

 

Agreed, they could have very well decided to strike the portion of the FOID law only pertaining to the possession of firearms in your own private property. They could have also striken the entire thing. I think the point is, they found the easiest solution to solve the problem, without having to touch the law, which the majority desperately support along political lines.

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...