Jump to content

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


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/SupremeCourt/Announce/2019/031219.pdf

 

124100

 

People State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Vivian Brown, Appellee. Appeal, Circuit Court (White).

 

Motion by Appellant for an extension of time for filing appellant's brief to and including April 26, 2019. Allowed. Final extension.

 

Order entered by Chief Justice Karmeier...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any news on the brief due today?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using the State's argument, poll taxes and a licence to vote that required payment and a background check (to verify you were eligable) would also be permissable, as would a fee and license to go to church. Funny how the government wants to apply different standards to different rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading the States Brief and looking at the sited cases, we will lose this case. They are right, courts have not ruled other more expensive schemes unconstitutional so how can this be? Also, the judge did make up an entire argument about the on their person thing. Wouldn't go getting hopes up just yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that they us New York License requirements in the defense of the FOID since it is currently under review by SCOTUS.

 

 

Delgado v. Kelly, 127 A.D.3d 644 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015) (New York licensing requirement to possess handgun in home did not violate Second Amendment); People v. Perkins, 62 A.D.3d 1160 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) (New York’s firearm licensing regulations did not violate Second Amendment

Edited by bmyers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that they us New York License requirements in the defense of the FOID since it is currently under review by SCOTUS.

 

I wonder if this could cause this case to stall as the court awaits on the SCOTUS decission, these mostly mundane cases pending before the SCOTUS could turn out to be 2nd game changers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not overly optimistic on this overturning FOID, but even if not upheld, might this get better service from the ISP in terms of an available paper form process, customer service answering calls, fixing account problems, faster processing, addressing missing cards, etc if the state response is claiming there is no burden to obtaining a FOID?

 

..."applicants for a FOID card must fill out a form, provide a photo ID, and pay a ten-dollar processing fee. These requirements necessary to the administration of the States legitimate prohibition against possession of

firearms by felons and the mentally ill do not unduly burden the exercise of ones constitutional rights."...

Edited by InterestedBystander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not overly optimistic on this overturning FOID, but even if not upheld, might this get better service from the ISP in terms of an available paper form process, customer service answering calls, fixing account problems, faster processing, addressing missing cards, etc if the state response is claiming there is no burden to obtaining a FOID?

 

L. O. L.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am not overly optimistic on this overturning FOID, but even if not upheld, might this get better service from the ISP in terms of an available paper form process, customer service answering calls, fixing account problems, faster processing, addressing missing cards, etc if the state response is claiming there is no burden to obtaining a FOID?

L. O. L.

OK, OK...I was looking for some positive out of it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. And clearly our right to bear arms is being infringed upon so we should get our hopes up and support this! I have an 18 year old daughter who is an enlisted marine that has waited for a foid card approval number for 5 months. This state is infringing any way that it can. Illinois is in clear violation of our 2nd amendment rights. We really need to spread the news of this and do anything we can to make sure it happens. My daughter is prepared to give her life for this country, the least we can do is honor those who gave their life for this right...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

 

I find it interesting that they us New York License requirements in the defense of the FOID since it is currently under review by SCOTUS.

 

I wonder if this could cause this case to stall as the court awaits on the SCOTUS decission, these mostly mundane cases pending before the SCOTUS could turn out to be 2nd game changers.

The way I see it, the Illinois State Supreme Court is likely watching the New York case currently pending before the US SCOTUS. They're also likely to see the writing on the wall in that case, and what a ruling there portends for gun control nationwide.

 

While its temping to be pessimistic and assume the court will uphold the FOID Act, it's also likely they they see where this is all headed, and avoid a future appeal to the Supreme Court by simply striking the FOID Act and avoiding a potential legal showdown.

 

Remember, the gun control movement is panicking over the New York case for good reason: Thomas would never let the court take any 2A case if he wasn't confident that he had the votes needed to issue a tough 2A ruling, and the gun control movement knows this, and they know it spells doom for their cause. The lower courts likely know this as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep because even if the Illinois Supreme Court rules it to be constitutional, SCOTUS can still say "nope you're wrong" and bork every blue state with this kind of garbage. Wouldn't be the first time SCOTUS has done it. Illinois v. Caballes, precedent for K9 walk-arounds, originally decided by ILSC, reversed by SCOTUS. Few others.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gun Rights Groups Join Legal Challenge Over Illinoiss Firearm Owner ID Law

 

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/gun_rights_groups_join_legal_challenge_over_illinois_s_firearm_owner_id_law

 

SPRINGFIELD, IL (June 3, 2019) -- Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) announced the filing of an important amicus brief before the Supreme Court of Illinois in People v. Brown, a key Second Amendment case challenging the constitutionality of the Illinoiss Firearm Owner Identification Card (FOID) laws. The coalitions amicus brief can be viewed at www.firearmspolicy.org/legal.

 

At issue was the fact the State of Illinois charged a life-long law abiding woman for keeping a firearm (a .22 single-shot rifle) in her home for self-defense because she did not possess a State-issued FOID card. Under current Illinois law, gun owners must obtain a government-approved FOID card and maintain possession of the card for as long as they possess the firearm, updating the card every 10 years. However, the State acknowledged the woman was not a prohibited person, nor ever misused the weapon in any way.

 

Accordingly, the coalition brief argued the States law is burdensome, has not had any demonstrably positive effect on crime, and has not served any purpose beyond making it more difficult for lawful citizens to exercise their fundamental rights that pre-exist government itself.

 

A law-abiding American should not be criminalized for exercising a core constitutional right, said Attorney Joseph Greenlee, FPC Legal Fellow and co-author of the coalition brief. What the State of Illinois is trying to punish Ms. Brown for is precisely what the Second Amendment was intended to prevent. So were pleased to support Ms. Brown and all gun owners in Illinois through this brief.

 

FPC President and FPF Chairman Brandon Combs agreed.

 

This case is important for Illinoisans -- and indeed, all people -- because it could invalidate the need to acquire government permission to merely keep a gun on ones own property, a right at the very core of the Second Amendment, Combs said.

 

FPC and FPF were joined in the amicus brief by Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Millennial Policy Center, Independence Institute, Professor Carlisle Moody of the College of William and Mary, States Attorneys Stewart J. Umholtz & Brandon J. Zanotti, as well as Second Amendment Law Professors Robert Cottrol, Nicholas Johnson, Nelson Lund, Joseph Olson, Glenn Reynolds, and Gregory Wallace.

 

The brief was co-authored by Gregory A. Bedell of Knabe, Kroning & Bedell, George A. Mocsary of Southern Illinois University School of Law, Joseph Greenlee of FPC and the Millennial Policy Center, and David B. Kopel of the Independence Institute.

 

http://davekopel.org/Briefs/People-v-Brown-Amicus-and-Appendix.pdf

Edited by InterestedBystander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When might the IL SC be giving a ruling on this case ?

Based on the lack of information on the Illinois Supreme Court website, the Illinois Supreme Court is an opaque organization whose operating details are shrouded in secrecy.

 

The first step toward a decision would be to hear the case, which they haven't done yet. I can find no list of cases, their associated docket numbers and documents, or anticipated schedules. The only information the site contains are past cases.

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Illinois Supreme Court is not scheduled to hear oral arguments again until Sept. 9, 2019. If the Court decides to wait on the US Supreme Court NY case, then I doubt the Brown case would be heard until 2020 and the Illinois Court may call for additional briefing after any NY decision. You can see the Court's argument schedule at page two here: http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/SupremeCourt/Docket/2019/May/05-19_DB.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The absurdity of an applicant paying for an FOID is that he gains nothing. It is not a user fee because his right to keep and bear already exists. Only the general public gains (presumably) by having those not qualified for an FOID denied the right to obtain or possess firearms or ammunition. So if the applicant gains nothing, what is the applicant paying for? The general public benefits (presumably) so the FOID apparatus should be paid from general revenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Very nice. My only concern is the language "in the home".

Is that written in the courts written opinion.

I would be happy to see it as unconstitutional period.

 

 

 

 

We would be too but remember, McDonald vs Chicago had to remove the ban in in the home before we could get rid of the ban outside the home.

 

 

 

 

Common sense (I know...I know...) dictates that one would have to be able to transport the firearm and ammunition TO the home. If it's legal IN the home without a license, it has to be legal getting it TO the home without a license.

As a nonresident military spouse stationed in Illinois I tried to make this point from 2012-2015, but it either fell on deaf ears or I was told to sit down and shut up. Nonresidents can't obtain FOIDs, thus can't purchase ammo, unless they are the active duty service member.

 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gun Rights Groups Join Legal Challenge Over Illinois’s Firearm Owner ID Law

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/gun_rights_groups_join_legal_challenge_over_illinois_s_firearm_owner_id_law

SPRINGFIELD, IL (June 3, 2019) -- Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) announced the filing of an important amicus brief before the Supreme Court of Illinois in People v. Brown, a key Second Amendment case challenging the constitutionality of the Illinois’s Firearm Owner Identification Card (FOID) laws. The coalition’s amicus brief can be viewed at www.firearmspolicy.org/legal.

At issue was the fact the State of Illinois charged a life-long law abiding woman for keeping a firearm (a .22 single-shot rifle) in her home for self-defense because she did not possess a State-issued FOID card. Under current Illinois law, gun owners must obtain a government-approved FOID card and maintain possession of the card for as long as they possess the firearm, updating the card every 10 years. However, the State acknowledged the woman was not a prohibited person, nor ever misused the weapon in any way.

Accordingly, the coalition brief argued the State’s law is burdensome, has not had any demonstrably positive effect on crime, and has not served any purpose beyond making it more difficult for lawful citizens to exercise their fundamental rights that pre-exist government itself.

“A law-abiding American should not be criminalized for exercising a core constitutional right,” said Attorney Joseph Greenlee, FPC Legal Fellow and co-author of the coalition brief. “What the State of Illinois is trying to punish Ms. Brown for is precisely what the Second Amendment was intended to prevent. So we’re pleased to support Ms. Brown and all gun owners in Illinois through this brief.”

FPC President and FPF Chairman Brandon Combs agreed.

“This case is important for Illinoisans -- and indeed, all people -- because it could invalidate the need to acquire government permission to merely keep a gun on one’s own property, a right at the very core of the Second Amendment,” Combs said.

FPC and FPF were joined in the amicus brief by Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Millennial Policy Center, Independence Institute, Professor Carlisle Moody of the College of William and Mary, State’s Attorneys Stewart J. Umholtz & Brandon J. Zanotti, as well as Second Amendment Law Professors Robert Cottrol, Nicholas Johnson, Nelson Lund, Joseph Olson, Glenn Reynolds, and Gregory Wallace.

The brief was co-authored by Gregory A. Bedell of Knabe, Kroning & Bedell, George A. Mocsary of Southern Illinois University School of Law, Joseph Greenlee of FPC and the Millennial Policy Center, and David B. Kopel of the Independence Institute.

It's nice to see these organizations filing briefs in support of Ms. Brown.

 

It's a shame that her own attorney David Sigale missed the deadline and didn't file a brief on her behalf. How does that happen. SMH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today was the deadline for the State to file its brief, Ms. Brown's response brief will be due May 31.

It's a shame that her own attorney David Sigale missed the deadline and didn't file a brief on her behalf. How does that happen

I find that surprising. Dont see how that happens.

Edited by InterestedBystander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Today was the deadline for the State to file its brief, Ms. Brown's response brief will be due May 31.

It's a shame that her own attorney David Sigale missed the deadline and didn't file a brief on her behalf. How does that happen

I find that surprising. Dont see how that happens.

If that’s true about Mr. Sigale, wasn’t he just a bit ago getting praise for his work for Pro 2A stuff?

After reading and following stuff, you’re never surprised by the same old same old at times!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Today was the deadline for the State to file its brief, Ms. Brown's response brief will be due May 31.

It's a shame that her own attorney David Sigale missed the deadline and didn't file a brief on her behalf. How does that happen

I find that surprising. Dont see how that happens.

 

 

 

That would be highly unusual. I have submitted an inquiry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's a shame that her own attorney David Sigale missed the deadline and didn't file a brief on her behalf. How does that happen. SMH.
Wait, what now? He didn't file a reply brief? Is he having a midlife crisis?Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
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...