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

[stockboyy]

the perfect storm:

Political Administrative Rule Making

to

Judicial Politics.

[Upholder]

I have not been able to find dockets for any portion of this case, only decisions.  If anyone can find that link, I could help @Molly B. with her request to tally the number of extensions requested by the state in this case.

[Cornholios_Revenge]

On 1/16/2023 at 9:40 AM, Upholder said:

I have not been able to find dockets for any portion of this case, only decisions.  If anyone can find that link, I could help @Molly B. with her request to tally the number of extensions requested by the state in this case.

 

Is this helpful, fifth case on the list, Case No. 127201

https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/courts/supreme-court/docket/march-2022

[Upholder]

On 1/16/2023 at 10:03 AM, Cornholios_Revenge said:

Is this helpful, fifth case on the list, Case No. 127201

https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/courts/supreme-court/docket/march-2022

 

It's unfortunately only the briefs, which doesn't help answer the question of how many times delays were requested by the AG during the case.

[Cornholios_Revenge]

Yes, I see. I'll keep looking.

[Cornholios_Revenge]

https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/da430029-0a56-4167-bfc2-d3f2ef4dfa6b/People v. Brown, 2022 IL 127201.pdf

 

I'm new at this so please forgive me if this is not helpful, but in case it is, this appears to have information outlining the progress of the case.

[bmyers]

On 1/16/2023 at 11:59 AM, Cornholios_Revenge said:

https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/da430029-0a56-4167-bfc2-d3f2ef4dfa6b/People v. Brown, 2022 IL 127201.pdf

 

I'm new at this so please forgive me if this is not helpful, but in case it is, this appears to have information outlining the progress of the case.

 

I believe what he is looking for is to see how many times delays were filed on the case, not the actual case. Molly in another thread is trying to get a count on how many times the AG delays cases. 

 

 

Edited January 16, 2023 at 06:02 PM by bmyers

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

Correct me if I am wrong here... The last action was the ILSC remanded back down to lower court with directions to dismiss and the lower court dismissed with some opinion and then the state appealed the dismissal and now here we sit waiting? 

[Euler]

On 4/9/2023 at 1:07 PM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

Correct me if I am wrong here... The last action was the ILSC remanded back down to lower court with directions to dismiss and the lower court dismissed with some opinion and then the state appealed the dismissal and now here we sit waiting? 

 

No. The charges were dismissed after the second remand, with no ruling of unconstitutionality, just like the state wanted. This case is done.

[DaveIL]

Per the Annual report:

 

People v. Brown, 2022 IL 127201 (June 16, 2022)
This case, involving a defendant who had been charged with possessing a rifle for home self-defense without a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card, had previously come before the Supreme Court on direct appeal when in 2020 the Court vacated the judgment of the circuit court and remanded the case with directions to enter a specific order. On remand the circuit court concluded it would not be in the “best interests of justice” to follow the Court’s directions and entered a different order. The Supreme Court determined that the circuit court had no authority to set aside the directions of the Court, entertain the defendant’s motion to reconsider, and enter a different order. The Court vacated the circuit court’s judgement and remanded the case to circuit court, stating that the circuit court shall not entertain any motion from any part nor take any action other than entering the modified order.

 

Still didn’t make sense at the moment…

[Molly B.]

On 4/9/2023 at 2:37 PM, Euler said:

 

No. The charges were dismissed after the second remand, with no ruling of unconstitutionality, just like the state wanted. This case is done.

 

As instructed by the Illinois Supreme Court, the circuit court in White County entered the order striking the FOID card requirement down on the theory of “impossibility of performance,” which is the notion that because one cannot possess their FOID card every single minute, and because they could get charged with possessing a firearm without a FOID card any time they are in a house with a firearm while not physically possessing a FOID card, the legislature must not have intended the FOID Card Act to apply in one’s home. Based on this, the case against Ms. Brown was dismissed. That Order is attached.

The circuit court had to follow the Supreme Court’s directions. Notably, the Supreme Court did not say the argument was correct. It just used that original circuit court language as a way to dodge the FOID constitutionality issue which has been the point of this case all along.

As predicted, the State has appealed to the Fifth Appellate District, at some point, the Appellate Court will reverse the ruling and send it back a third time to the circuit court in White County.

 

	8/30/2022     Notice of Appeal filed.   8/29/2022     MODIFIED ORDER ENTERED PURSUANT TO THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT'S MANDATE.    8/26/2022     Per request of SA, Status hearing set for 08/29/2022 at 9:00 in courtroom A.     8/24/2022         BASED ON THE MANDATE OF THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT AND NOT UPON THE MERITS, THIS COURT HEREBY DISMISSES THIS CAUSE. CLERK TO FORWARD COPY OF THE IS ENTRY TO ATTORNEYS OF RECORD. Then, if the White County Judge is still so inclined, he/she can finally enter an unconstitutionality Order without any procedural roadblocks to keep the Supreme Court from considering the matter. So the fight continues.

And the next time we will have NYSRPA vs Bruen to add to our arguments.
 

ORDER of 9_1_2022.pdf

[Euler]

On 4/9/2023 at 5:16 PM, Molly B. said:

...

8/30/2022
    Notice of Appeal filed.  
8/29/2022
    MODIFIED ORDER ENTERED PURSUANT TO THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT'S MANDATE.   
8/26/2022
    Per request of SA, Status hearing set for 08/29/2022 at 9:00 in courtroom A.    
8/24/2022
    BASED ON THE MANDATE OF THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT AND NOT UPON THE MERITS, THIS COURT HEREBY DISMISSES THIS CAUSE. CLERK TO FORWARD COPY OF THE IS ENTRY TO ATTORNEYS OF RECORD.

...

 

It escaped me that the state appealed a third time. That's insane. The county court followed the supreme court's order and the state still isn't satisfied. If the state supreme court reverses itself on the same case, it's an indication that the state supreme court is unsure/indecisive of how to apply state law to a state case. That makes it ripe to appeal to the US Supreme Court (not that the US Supreme Court would necessarily take it).

 

Edited April 9, 2023 at 09:51 PM by Euler

[mab22]

On 4/9/2023 at 4:16 PM, Molly B. said:

 

As instructed by the Illinois Supreme Court, the circuit court in White County entered the order striking the FOID card requirement down on the theory of “impossibility of performance,” which is the notion that because one cannot possess their FOID card every single minute, and because they could get charged with possessing a firearm without a FOID card any time they are in a house with a firearm while not physically possessing a FOID card, the legislature must not have intended the FOID Card Act to apply in one’s home. Based on this, the case against Ms. Brown was dismissed. That Order is attached.

The circuit court had to follow the Supreme Court’s directions. Notably, the Supreme Court did not say the argument was correct. It just used that original circuit court language as a way to dodge the FOID constitutionality issue which has been the point of this case all along.

As predicted, the State has appealed to the Fifth Appellate District, at some point, the Appellate Court will reverse the ruling and send it back a third time to the circuit court in White County.

 

	8/30/2022     Notice of Appeal filed.   8/29/2022     MODIFIED ORDER ENTERED PURSUANT TO THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT'S MANDATE.    8/26/2022     Per request of SA, Status hearing set for 08/29/2022 at 9:00 in courtroom A.     8/24/2022         BASED ON THE MANDATE OF THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT AND NOT UPON THE MERITS, THIS COURT HEREBY DISMISSES THIS CAUSE. CLERK TO FORWARD COPY OF THE IS ENTRY TO ATTORNEYS OF RECORD. Then, if the White County Judge is still so inclined, he/she can finally enter an unconstitutionality Order without any procedural roadblocks to keep the Supreme Court from considering the matter. So the fight continues.

And the next time we will have NYSRPA vs Bruen to add to our arguments.
 

ORDER of 9_1_2022.pdf 74.48 kB · 4 downloads

Is this an order from the Supreme court that a FOID is NOT required in the home, along with ammo?
 

[Euler]

On 4/9/2023 at 8:55 PM, mab22 said:

Is this an order from the Supreme court that a FOID is NOT required in the home, along with ammo?

 

It's the order from the county court, finding that it is not required to have a FOID to keep items in the home that would otherwise require a FOID outside the home.

 

The logic goes like this:

 

It has previously been found that having a FOID, but not having it on oneself, is insufficient to comply with the law. However, no one keeps their FOID on them at home every second of every day. Such a requirement is unreasonable, therefore the legislature cannot have intended it to apply inside the home. Therefore a FOID is not required to keep items in the home that would otherwise require a FOID outside the home.

 

IMO the logic is flawed.

1. I think it's absolutely possible that the legislature intended for us to be in violation of the law if we ever set our FOID aside in the home, even to sleep or bathe. No legislature has ever been bound by logic. The ILGA certainly isn't.
2. Even if it's impossible to keep a FOID on oneself every second, it can still be required to have a FOID not on oneself. (This condition would be the one that applies to Brown.)

However, the supreme court instructed the county court that the "every second of every day" argument was enough to dismiss the case, even though Brown doesn't have a FOID anywhere. I believe the judge thinks similarly when he writes that he dismissed the charges on the mandate of the supreme court, not on the merits of the case.

 

Edited April 10, 2023 at 02:02 AM by Euler

[mab22]

On 4/9/2023 at 9:01 PM, Euler said:

 

It's the order from the county court, finding that it is not required to have a FOID to keep items in the home that would otherwise require a FOID outside the home.

 

The logic goes like this:

 

It has previously been found that having a FOID, but not having it on oneself, is insufficient to comply with the law. However, no one keeps their FOID on them at home every second of every day. Such a requirement is unreasonable, therefore the legislature cannot have intended it to apply inside the home. Therefore a FOID is not required to keep items in the home that would otherwise require a FOID outside the home.

 

IMO the logic is flawed.

1. I think it's absolutely possible that the legislature intended for us to be in violation of the law if we ever set our FOID aside in the home, even to sleep or bathe. No legislature has ever been bound by logic. The ILGA certainly isn't.
2. Even if it's impossible to keep a FOID on oneself every second, it can still be required to have a FOID not on oneself. (This condition would be the one that applies to Brown.)

However, the supreme court instructed the county court that the "every second of every day" argument was enough to dismiss the case, even though Brown doesn't have a FOID anywhere. I believe the judge thinks similarly when he writes that he dismissed the charges on the mandate of the supreme court, not on the merits of the case.

 

So it’s a chink in the armor, and they are afraid of that the FOID is a legal failure so let’s see if this crap sticks to any walls when we throw it at the fan. 

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

On 4/9/2023 at 4:16 PM, Molly B. said:

As predicted, the State has appealed to the Fifth Appellate District, at some point, the Appellate Court will reverse the ruling and send it back a third time to the circuit court in White County.

So then it is still alive and kicking at the appellate level? Do we have any dates expected for this? 

[Molly B.]

Received word on movement in this case:

 

The Fifth District Appellate Court has finally reversed and remanded the erroneous ruling based on the "impossibility of compliance" argument that no one made or argued. 

 

We now get to make the "unconstitutionality of the FOID Card" argument for a third time in White County Circuit Court, and, assuming it is again granted, will result in the matter being heard in the Illinois Supreme Court for a third time. This time, of course, Bruen is the applicable standard, which will no doubt affect the legal arguments by counsel and the analysis by the Courts.

 

[steveTA84]

On 8/7/2023 at 4:18 PM, Molly B. said:

Received word on movement in this case:

 

The Fifth District Appellate Court has finally reversed and remanded the erroneous ruling based on the "impossibility of compliance" argument that no one made or argued. 

 

We now get to make the "unconstitutionality of the FOID Card" argument for a third time in White County Circuit Court, and, assuming it is again granted, will result in the matter being heard in the Illinois Supreme Court for a third time. This time, of course, Bruen is the applicable standard, which will no doubt affect the legal arguments by counsel and the analysis by the Courts.

 

Can we now include in arguments that the FOID is a product of the late 1960’s when there were racial tensions and the whole reason the FOID exists was to criminalize minorities who did not want to ask permission from the police at time  when police/minority relationships were horrible and the law was to target them specifically as stated by the guy who penned the law (Sen Arrington)?

Edited August 7, 2023 at 10:01 PM by steveTA84

[Flynn]

On 8/7/2023 at 4:59 PM, steveTA84 said:

Can we now include in arguments that the FOID is a product of the late 1960’s when there were racial tensions and the whole reason the FOID exists was to criminalize minorities who did not want to ask permission from the police at time  when police/minority relationships were horrible and the law was to target them specifically as stated by the guy who penned the law (Sen Arrington)?

 

I believe post-Bruen you simply argue that all those 1960 and newer laws are moot as they are not found in history and tradition analogs from the founding era as Bruen mandates for them to be constitutional...

[crufflesmuth]

The FOID is just as much a product of the state's ban on bail bondsmen in 1964. In addition to the racial politics that ensued thereafter.They did not want people fighting back.

Especially after CPD's infamous murder of the black panthers. 

 

As for compliance, I think the state could counter that if FOID's don't expire then it fits within the historical 

context (though we both know it does not). If as passed, FOID's never expired (back in

the beginning), it could actually stay. 

 

I hope plaintiff(s) prevail because owning a gun in Illinois is often dismissed because people don't 

want to wait all the time, that's especially true in the more metropolitan areas. People will

wait and travel for a CCL, even the classes. 

 

Honestly, with FTIP I don't see why the ISP spends the time advocating and defending the FOID.

If viewed plainly, it's just another form of classist discrimination. 

 

Perhaps one day we can buy guns from an actual shop and range in Metropolitan Chicago when

the zoning laws and costs are challenged in a similar fashion. 

 

 

[Flynn]

On 8/7/2023 at 8:42 PM, crufflesmuth said:

Asfor compliance, I think the state could counter that if FOID's don't expire then it fits within the historical 

context (though we both know it does not). If as passed, FOID's never expired (back in

the beginning), it could actually stay. 

 

I don't even think that would pass Bruen muster.  Where in founding era history was a state-specific government permission slip needed before one could possess, carry, purchase, guns, powder, bullets, or be required to purchase/carry some knives or air guns?

 

Until and only if the SCOTUS narrows Bruen and allows modern policies to be included over and above their history and tradition, I would say FOID has zero legal standing in any form, except possibly an extra 'optional' endorsement on your state ID that could streamline purchasing of firearms sa something like being able to avoid waiting periods if you had such endorsement, assuming waiting periods are even constitutional.

[mikew]

On 8/7/2023 at 4:18 PM, Molly B. said:

This time, of course, Bruen is the applicable standard, which will no doubt affect the legal arguments by counsel and the analysis by the Courts.

 

I don't hold a lot of hope that JB's IL Supreme Court will recognize Bruen.

It will be a continuing battle.

I hope that I'm wrong.

 

 

 

 

[mab22]

On 8/7/2023 at 4:18 PM, Molly B. said:

Received word on movement in this case:

 

The Fifth District Appellate Court has finally reversed and remanded the erroneous ruling based on the "impossibility of compliance" argument that no one made or argued. 

 

We now get to make the "unconstitutionality of the FOID Card" argument for a third time in White County Circuit Court, and, assuming it is again granted, will result in the matter being heard in the Illinois Supreme Court for a third time. This time, of course, Bruen is the applicable standard, which will no doubt affect the legal arguments by counsel and the analysis by the Courts.

 

 

This won’t work at the State Level, they will come up with even more EPIC bull 💩 rulings like they did last time.

We just need to do it at the federal level, it’s been said before.

To those thinking Bruen will make a difference, see the cartoons below. 

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

On 8/7/2023 at 10:00 PM, mikew said:

I don't hold a lot of hope that JB's IL Supreme Court will recognize Bruen.

It will be a continuing battle.

I hope that I'm wrong.

 

 

 

 

I had high regard for the ILSC at one time. That time has gone. I fear we will win zero cases with the two bought and paid-for judges sitting on the bench.  When this case was filed, there was a chance to win it at the state level, but not anymore. Although the Bruen argument is an easy one to make, so many elected and appointed officials, even judges, are simply ignoring it. 

Edited August 8, 2023 at 01:18 PM by AlphaKoncepts aka CGS

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 8/7/2023 at 8:42 PM, crufflesmuth said:

As for compliance, I think the state could counter that if FOID's don't expire then it fits within the historical 

context (though we both know it does not). If as passed, FOID's never expired (back in

the beginning), it could actually stay. 

 

Compliance would have to start with no costs for FOID and CCL, you can't charge for a constitutional right. 

If they talk covering costs, then they need to start charging a WHOLE lot for the voters ID card because that's a very expensive recurring cost to state. 

[davel501]

It's funny how saving the FOID would lead to the scarlet letter. The only way to make it work is to put a big red F for felon or even P for prohibited on someone's state ID. Something similar to an under 21 ID except everyone you show your ID to would know you are a bad person.

[Jeffrey]

On 8/8/2023 at 10:44 AM, davel501 said:

It's funny how saving the FOID would lead to the scarlet letter. The only way to make it work is to put a big red F for felon or even P for prohibited on someone's state ID. Something similar to an under 21 ID except everyone you show your ID to would know you are a bad person.

As much as I'd personally like to know who I am surrounded by, this is teetering a gold star on your sleeve type environment.

[davel501]

On 8/8/2023 at 10:47 AM, Jeffrey said:

As much as I'd personally like to know who I am surrounded by, this is teetering a gold star on your sleeve type environment.

 

The thought of politicians doing verbal gymnastics to oppose such a thing without saying they oppose it because it would apply to them makes me smile though.

[ragsbo]

On 8/8/2023 at 8:16 AM, AlphaKoncepts aka CGS said:

I had high regard for the ILSC at one time. That time has gone. I fear we will win zero cases with the two bought and paid-for judges sitting on the bench.  When this case was filed, there was a chance to win it at the state level, but not anymore. Although the Bruen argument is an easy one to make, so many elected and appointed officials, even judges, are simply ignoring it. 

They are ignoring it because no one is holding them accountable for violating our rights. The US Supreme Court should hold these folks in contempt of the court and send the US Marshals to arrest them! You have to make it painful for them to violate stuff like they want to do to us for not calling some mental unstable person their chosen pronouns.

[yurimodin]

On 8/8/2023 at 4:05 PM, ragsbo said:

They are ignoring it because no one is holding them accountable for violating our rights. The US Supreme Court should hold these folks in contempt of the court and send the US Marshals to arrest them! You have to make it painful for them to violate stuff like they want to do to us for not calling some mental unstable person their chosen pronouns.

how long until we can charge these judges with felonies for 1983 violations......