Jump to content

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


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

On 3/24/2022 at 10:03 AM, chemical operator1 said:

I was granted relief from the ISP because of a prohibitor. I met all the qualifications for my firearm rights to be restored through the state. I also believe that the FOID card is a joke and we shouldn’t need it. But my question is if the Supreme Court in Illinois or the US Supreme Court nullifies the FOID would I then be able to not own my firearms? And also there is no path Federally to get relief. Schumer blocked the funding years ago for the ATF to grant this. And no Senator even with the Republicans in control of both houses ever revisited the funding issue that could resolve this. Any experts with any idea as to where that would leave people like me? I have my Gubernatorial Clemency petition on the Governors desk. So I’m trying that path also. But that could be YEARS to say the least if ever even looked at. 

 

The FOID does not give you rights. If the Feds don't approve of you purchasing firearms you wont. Ask anyone with a medical marijuana card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rights are restored in states that do not have FOID cards.

On 3/24/2022 at 10:03 AM, chemical operator1 said:

I was granted relief from the ISP because of a prohibitor. I met all the qualifications for my firearm rights to be restored through the state. I also believe that the FOID card is a joke and we shouldn’t need it. But my question is if the Supreme Court in Illinois or the US Supreme Court nullifies the FOID would I then be able to not own my firearms? And also there is no path Federally to get relief. Schumer blocked the funding years ago for the ATF to grant this. And no Senator even with the Republicans in control of both houses ever revisited the funding issue that could resolve this. Any experts with any idea as to where that would leave people like me? I have my Gubernatorial Clemency petition on the Governors desk. So I’m trying that path also. But that could be YEARS to say the least if ever even looked at. 



Rights are restored in states that do not have FOID cards.  If rights are restored, that info is shared with NICS (I believe that is the agency) and those persons are removed from the 'prohibited persons' list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2022 at 5:29 PM, Flynn said:

 

I honeslty hope the justices are not silly enough to proclaim an enumerated protected civil right ends at your house door threshold.

 Exactly why they are waiting on SCOTUS to rule in NYSPRA.

 

that’s basically the right that case is asking SCOTUS to affirm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 6/13/2022 at 1:27 PM, Euler said:

 

It's not a "lawsuit challenging the FOID Card Act." It's a criminal prosecution of a woman who owned a rifle without a FOID. The judge dismissed the charge on the grounds that the FOID was unconstitutional, and the state appealed.

 

 

You aren't wrong, but I think the main information here is we will get an opinion from the Illinois Supreme Court this week on this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2022 at 2:29 PM, Lord_Balkan said:

You aren't wrong, but I think the main information here is we will get an opinion from the Illinois Supreme Court this week on this case.

 

I'm pointing out that Rob Romano is wrong, and I'd like to prevent his misperception/misunderstanding from spreading. While it is true that many 2A cases are (usually federal) civil rights lawsuits, this one isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One is forgetting, that even in a criminal lawsuit. If the person is found “not guilty” or the case is dismissed because the law that the person is being charged under is found to be unconstitutional. Then at that point the law becomes UNENFORCEABLE. Because anyone else that is charged with the same crime, will NOT be able to be convicted. This case would be used as a reference case.

 

A win here for Brown, is a win for everyone. If the reason the case is dismissed, or she is found “not guilty” is because the FOID act or parts of the FOID act are found unconstitutional, then the FOID act or the parts that were found unconstitutional become unenforceable. 
 

The next question, to be asked, is will the loosing party appeal to SCOTUS. A lot would ride on the opinion released from NYSPRA.

Edited by Texasgrillchef
Update
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2022 at 2:03 PM, Texasgrillchef said:

One is forgetting, that even in a criminal lawsuit. If the person is found “not guilty” or the case is dismissed because the law that the person is being charged under is found to be unconstitutional. Then at that point the law becomes UNENFORCEABLE. Because anyone else that is charged with the same crime, will NOT be able to be convicted. This case would be used as a reference case.

 

A win here for Brown, is a win for everyone. If the reason the case is dismissed, or she is found “not guilty” is because the FOID act or parts of the FOID act are found unconstitutional, then the FOID act or the parts that were found unconstitutional become unenforceable. 
 

The next question, to be asked, is will the loosing party appeal to SCOTUS. A lot would ride on the opinion released from NYSPRA.

As long as you can afford the lawyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2022 at 3:04 PM, SiliconSorcerer said:

As long as you can afford the lawyer.

Why it’s good to have US Legal shield or be a member of the USCCA. That provides legal services. It has come in handy for me as well.

 

Suffice it to say Cook County will try to get the Legislature to pass something the next term. Which might not fail passing.

 

However hopefully, just maybe something coming out of SCOTUS will help stop that from happening.

 

Right now gun rights are up n the air with many states rushing to pass gun control laws, and over 50 2A cases on hold because of NYSPRA that if they all won would make huge changes in our favor. But we shall see. All speculation until they issue!

Edited by Texasgrillchef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2022 at 6:41 PM, SiliconSorcerer said:

Sure they cover that? 

 

Since People v Brown is a criminal prosecution for illegal possession, I suspect not.

 

Law Shield/USCCA/CCWSafe/etc. defend legal self-defenders. If Brown had gotten charged with illegal possession because she shot an intruder, I'd be a little more confident, but not all the way. Meanwhile, it's SAF to the rescue (this time).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2022 at 6:24 PM, Euler said:

 

Since People v Brown is a criminal prosecution for illegal possession, I suspect not.

 

Law Shield/USCCA/CCWSafe/etc. defend legal self-defenders. If Brown had gotten charged with illegal possession because she shot an intruder, I'd be a little more confident, but not all the way. Meanwhile, it's SAF to the rescue (this time).


They do cover for other things besides just when someone was in a self defense situation as well. But you are right they do have limitations. Would they have covered in this situation it is hard to say. When I asked my representative for US law shield. They said they would have to know all the information to decide. I couldn’t get a firm answer when I used Brown as an example.

 

They are still good to have though. Because even if they can’t defend you or won’t cover your legal expenses. They will always help to find you an appropriate lawyer for your defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2022 at 8:02 AM, Texasgrillchef said:


They do cover for other things besides just when someone was in a self defense situation as well. But you are right they do have limitations. Would they have covered in this situation it is hard to say. When I asked my representative for US law shield. They said they would have to know all the information to decide. I couldn’t get a firm answer when I used Brown as an example.

 

They are still good to have though. Because even if they can’t defend you or won’t cover your legal expenses. They will always help to find you an appropriate lawyer for your defense.

I agree with having which I do, I just wouldn't want to have to find out ;) 

I suspect there will be a clarifying statement from the police, I just assumed they knew it was a lost cause and why they combined it into the carry. 

What will they do about ammo sales??? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2022 at 9:02 AM, Texasgrillchef said:

... Would they have covered in this situation it is hard to say. When I asked my representative for US law shield. They said they would have to know all the information to decide. I couldn’t get a firm answer when I used Brown as an example.

...

 

Your TX lawyers probably don't know because TX doesn't require a license to own a firearm, so it's not a situation they've ever encountered. I can't really fault them for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2022 at 6:09 PM, Euler said:

 

Your TX lawyers probably don't know because TX doesn't require a license to own a firearm, so it's not a situation they've ever encountered. I can't really fault them for that.

My service allows me to access lawyers from any state. So when I talked to them, I talked to lawyers not just from Texas, but from Illinois as well.

 

Also, there are certain places in Texas that still require a Texas LTC or one that Texas will recognize.

 

Examples are:

 

Any state or county fair.

State Capitol Building

All levels of public higher education

All levels of Private higher education that has chosen to allow one to carry on campus.

Colorado River Natural area.

And any private company that chooses to only allow those with a LTC

Any government meeting open to the public, unless notice is given in advance, and LEO’s are present.

There maybe a few other places as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it means we are back to where we were 2 years ago. 

 

Reading the opinion seemed to have nothing to do with the FOID Act but instead dealt with the lower court and how they handled it. 

 

Be curious to see what much brighter minds than mine have to say about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They really want this to go through the appellate court process before they consider the issue.  It seems to read the lower court has the option to dismiss the case.  If they do that, can't the lower court then dismiss all cases of possession of a firearm without a FOID card?  Is that what the Supreme Court wants the lower court to do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is the Court admits there is a need for review and to establish that it is constitutional or not, but doesn't rule on that issue, because of the procedure of the lower court.

 

 

We recognize that the parties are clearly anxious to have this court review the circuit court’s order of April 26, 2021, finding section 2(a)(1) unconstitutional as applied. Indeed, in the circuit court, counsel for defendant was so intent on reaching the constitutional issue that he took the extraordinary step of moving to vacate the June 4, 2020, modified order—an order that granted his client complete relief in a criminal case—even though counsel was appearing before a new judge and had been given no assurance on the record as to how that judge might rule on any future defense motions. Nevertheless, the parties’ desire to have this court review the circuit court’s April 26, 2021, order does not solve the fundamental problem presented here: to review the circuit court’s order finding section 2(a)(1) unconstitutional, this court would first have to conclude that the circuit court had the authority to enter that order. And to reach that conclusion, we would have to hold that a circuit court possesses the power to set aside the directions of this court. We cannot take that step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Edited by cls74
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...