Jump to content

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


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

Constitutional protected rights don't end at your doorway threshold, so if even if the wording of a final ruling is narrow it should be easy to expand upon. And even in the interm a ruling that no FOID is needed to own/possses guns in your residence is a HUGE step forward in this state.
Yes, but until the FOID is gone completely, it's still a roadblock.

 

So I don't need a FOID to have a gun at home, but without a FOID, I still can't go out and buy one, legally transport it to/from a range to practice, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Great news. What other Constitutionally protected right do you have to pass a test and pay for?

 

To operate a radio transmitter.

Operating a radio transmitter has to do with Federally regulated frequencies and electronic equipment and high voltages. Not the same thing and not free speech or right which shall not be infringed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Great news. What other Constitutionally protected right do you have to pass a test and pay for?

 

 

To operate a radio transmitter.

 

 

 

 

That is federal, if I'm not mistaken.

The feds don't charge for an amateur radio license. Any fees are for the test and are charged by a Volunteer Examiner Coordinator. Find a VEC who will do it for free, and you're good to go. I'm not sure about other radio licenses though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great news. What other Constitutionally protected right do you have to pass a test and pay for?

Great news. What other Constitutionally protected right do you have to pass a test and pay for?

Having to pay and ask for permission from the ISP makes it a privilege and is treated by politicians in this state as a privilege which can easily be revoked by the ISP and in some cases the right has been taken away for traffic offenses which have been discussed on this board.

 

Can't wait for the Supreme Court to invalidate all these Unconstitutional laws paid by the anti Constitutional rights people who want total control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A motion to appeal was filed on 11/20/18.

An extension was requested on 1/23/19

Another extention was requested on 3/12/19 with the court saying this is the final extension briefs due on 4/26

 

Then there will be the reply brief from the defandant and then, there will be a reply from the state to which they will dawdel and most likely ask for an extension. So may not get before the Court till October. Right about the time New York is being heard. So depending, we could go up after New York. And have the benefit of those orals. and depending on how long delayed, could even see a ruling in the interum.

this may toss a monkey wrench into some of those things going on at the capitol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Molly, is there any need to start a GoFundMe to help in this effort? I'm sure there a lot of people here who would be willing to kick in a few bucks - myself included

me too. only in this context!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Molly, is there any need to start a GoFundMe to help in this effort? I'm sure there a lot of people here who would be willing to kick in a few bucks - myself included

Rather than a go fund me, we would rather see donations to IllinoisCarry marked Brown case.

 

Ah, that's good. thanks Molly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must note that this is AS APPLIED challenge. Not a facial challenge. It's not gonna void our the FOID. It'll just void out the FOID requirement for defendant Brown. I can't figure out why her lawyer would plead it that way but that's what happened. I suppose it could turn into a facial challenge, but...I dunno.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must note that this is AS APPLIED challenge. Not a facial challenge. It's not gonna void our the FOID. It'll just void out the FOID requirement for defendant Brown. I can't figure out why her lawyer would plead it that way but that's what happened. I suppose it could turn into a facial challenge, but...I dunno. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

The next step (if it played out that way) would be to litigate the fact that if defendant Brown can't be legally required to have a FOID card, then neither can anybody else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Great news. What other Constitutionally protected right do you have to pass a test and pay for?

Great news. What other Constitutionally protected right do you have to pass a test and pay for?

Having to pay and ask for permission from the ISP makes it a privilege and is treated by politicians in this state as a privilege which can easily be revoked by the ISP and in some cases the right has been taken away for traffic offenses which have been discussed on this board.

 

Can't wait for the Supreme Court to invalidate all these Unconstitutional laws paid by the anti Constitutional rights people who want total control.

 

Exactly. Even those who yell fire in a movie theater never lose their right to free speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The next step (if it played out that way) would be to litigate the fact that if defendant Brown can't be legally required to have a FOID card, then neither can anybody else.
That's the logical process. I just don't know why her attorney challenged it as applied. Not like some felon restoration case where details are VERY important. It's gonna be interesting when it comes up on appeal. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The next step (if it played out that way) would be to litigate the fact that if defendant Brown can't be legally required to have a FOID card, then neither can anybody else.

That's the logical process. I just don't know why her attorney challenged it as applied. Not like some felon restoration case where details are VERY important. It's gonna be interesting when it comes up on appeal. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

My guess is that because this was a criminal case, her attorney's primary duty was to his client.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a move in the right direction but as we all know, the courts take their own sweet time and we all know the state will fight this with every method (legal or not) they can come up with. We must keep pushing it and keep their feet to the fire. I think we should demand all the money we had to pay for the FOID crap returned to us with interest!

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
×
×
  • Create New...