Jump to content

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


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

A little snippet re historic gun law:


 

Quote

 

Chicago enacted a handgun permit to purchase law in 1911. It did not apply
to the simple possession of arms, nor to long guns. 1911 Chi. Code ch. 53 (“to

purchase any pistol, revolver, derringer, bowie knife, dirk or other weapon of

 

like character which can be concealed on the person”).


The law at issue in this case, the FOID statute, was enacted with the strong
support of Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley.

 

In 1966 Mayor Daley told President Lyndon Johnson:
n the city we have controlbut what the heck, in the suburbs that areyou
go out to all around our suburbs and you got people out there, especially the
non-white, are buying guns right and left.

 

Appellant analogizes the FOID application fee, which was $5 in
1967, to some earlier state taxes on firearms: “For example, Georgia,
Mississippi, and North Carolina each imposed a fee or tax to possess a pistol,
and authorities could seize citizens’ firearms if they did not comply with the
requirement.

 

In 1967, the $5 fee was equivalent to $41.65 today. It is easy to see how a fee of $41 could prevent some poor “non-whites” from being able legally to keep a firearm they already owned

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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 by Texasgrillchef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Texasgrillchef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by bmyers
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...