Jump to content

People v. Brown - FOID unconstituional IL District Court ruling overruled in higher court

Molly B.

By Molly B.
in Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Tip Member

Tip

Posted
Posted

Okay so this begs the question -

does this rule the FOID requirement unconstitutional to possess within the home,

or does it rule the FOID requirement unconstitutional to possess period?

steveTA84 Member

steveTA84

Posted
Posted
On 2/10/2025 at 12:18 PM, Tip said:

Okay so this begs the question -

does this rule the FOID requirement unconstitutional to possess within the home,

or does it rule the FOID requirement unconstitutional to possess period?

It rules it unconstitutional for the mere means of possessing/buying/keeping in the home or a vehicle locked up. Judge said the law makes it so everyone is a dangerous person and needs to prove their innocence in order to be legal, and that’s unconstitutional. Judge has no problem with CCL system, but the FOID itself is illegal 

Jeffrey Member

Jeffrey

Posted
Posted
On 2/10/2025 at 1:56 PM, soundguy said:

I want to keep the FOID...

I would make it optional, serving as a No Waiting Period card.

The CCL could serve the same purpose.

 

Cheers,

Tim

That's what an IBGC was for I thought? 

Where in the 2A does it show a waiting period?

Jeffrey Member

Jeffrey

Posted
Posted
On 2/10/2025 at 3:36 PM, SiliconSorcerer said:

Where in the 2A does it require a background check? 

I'm not arguing for elimination but...

...but you've convinced me.  None of what the FOID is supposedly for is ever mentioned in any of my pocket constitutions. 

EdDinIL Member

EdDinIL

Posted
Posted
On 2/10/2025 at 3:48 PM, Jeffrey said:

...but you've convinced me.  None of what the FOID is supposedly for is ever mentioned in any of my pocket constitutions. 

Don't worry, 7th Circuit will rule that the state has a history and tradition of oppressing our rights.

Nanook Member

Nanook

Posted
Posted

One way the state has kind of fought back is now your CCL if you have one is tied to the FOID. And the whole 'does not expire' with no visible date tends to cloud the issue. 

 

I agree, FOID is unconstitutional on its face. So are waiting periods. Using that logic, we'd have to wait some undetermined period before voting. 

ragsbo Member

ragsbo

Posted
Posted
On 2/10/2025 at 5:10 PM, Nanook said:

One way the state has kind of fought back is now your CCL if you have one is tied to the FOID. And the whole 'does not expire' with no visible date tends to cloud the issue. 

 

I agree, FOID is unconstitutional on its face. So are waiting periods. Using that logic, we'd have to wait some undetermined period before voting. 

The state did it to themselves so they can eat the cost of printing new CCL only cards when the foid goes the way of the doodoo bird. The state did this "combining" crap on purpose to muddy things up. The state should be held accountable (yeah they won't be). AND the USSC still treats the 2nd as an inferior right.

splitaxe Welcome New Member

splitaxe

Posted
Posted
On 2/10/2025 at 10:47 AM, Jeffrey said:

I'd prefer to send mine back and they can send me back my check.

I down for some reparations.  They can even wait and include my PICA payment with the FOID payment. 

Euler Member

Euler

Posted
Posted
On February 10, 2025 at 03:36 PM CST, SiliconSorcerer said:→
Where in the 2A does it require a background check?
...

I believe the argument could be made that only "the people" can keep and bear arms, so the background check would be required to authenticate people as people.
davel501 Member

davel501

Posted
Posted
On 2/10/2025 at 3:57 PM, soundguy said:

The 2A says nothing about a timeline, and the modern Good SCOTUS has held, at least since Heller, the 2A is not absolute. 
 

Cheers,

Tim

 

So you'd be fine if trump signed an executive order that democrats have to wait to vote until after the election is certified? 

mab22 Member

mab22

Posted
Posted
On 2/10/2025 at 3:36 PM, SiliconSorcerer said:

Where in the 2A does it require a background check? 

I'm not arguing for elimination but...

BRILLIANT!!!!! 
I’m all for people having to go through a background check to VOTE as well! You are not a citizen, No VOID card for you!!! 
And to really lock it down we can require fingerprint, AND we get to WATCH you vote, on camera so we can see that !  😎

Upholder Member

Upholder

Posted
Posted
On 2/10/2025 at 3:56 PM, EdDinIL said:

Don't worry, 7th Circuit will rule that the state has a history and tradition of oppressing our rights.

 

And they would be correct.. just not in a time period that matters.

soundguy Member

soundguy

Posted
Posted
On 2/10/2025 at 7:58 PM, davel501 said:

So you'd be fine if trump signed an executive order that democrats have to wait to vote until after the election is certified? 

 

Who ever said a waiting period was OK?

 

Trump or any President can sign whatever worthless EO they wish.

The manner in which elections are conducted is determined by the states.

 

 

Pragmatically, the waiting period is what we have here in Illinois, and in other states.

It will not go away by EO or by real Federal law without one heck of a court battle.

The 2A has been infringed upon in many different ways since our founding.

SCOTUS says the 2A is not absolute and some "gun control" is OK.

A waiting period seems to be allowable per SCOTUS.

 

Keep up the fight.

 

Cheers,

Tim

 

davel501 Member

davel501

Posted
Posted
On 2/10/2025 at 3:57 PM, soundguy said:

The 2A says nothing about a timeline, and the modern Good SCOTUS has held, at least since Heller, the 2A is not absolute. 
 

Cheers,

Tim

 

On 2/10/2025 at 9:56 PM, soundguy said:

 

Who ever said a waiting period was OK?

 

Trump or any President can sign whatever worthless EO they wish.

The manner in which elections are conducted is determined by the states.

 

 

Pragmatically, the waiting period is what we have here in Illinois, and in other states.

It will not go away by EO or by real Federal law without one heck of a court battle.

The 2A has been infringed upon in many different ways since our founding.

SCOTUS says the 2A is not absolute and some "gun control" is OK.

A waiting period seems to be allowable per SCOTUS.

 

Keep up the fight.

 

Cheers,

Tim

 

 

You seemed to. 

 

I haven't seen a case where scotus said waiting periods were ok. I am assuming the case they want hasn't come along yet. Waiting periods have no basis in history and tradition though. 

crufflesmuth Member

crufflesmuth

Posted
Posted (edited)

If the FOID goes away, they will convert it to simply a purchase permit similar to Maryland. Validity for a few years and you can buy as many as you may afford through that duration. So it will not apply anymore for mere possession. I would not put it past them to just do away with transportation requirements and designate every instance as "carry" and you still are stuck with it: for purchasing firearms and carrying them. We would not want those FTIP and FOID databases to disappear along with the troopers and criminal defense firms to be reduced or disappear overnight, now would we? That is worst case scenario applied.

Edited by crufflesmuth
ragsbo Member

ragsbo

Posted
Posted

You can bet your bottom dollar what ever happens to the foid or pica or what ever gun laws, the liberal socialist commies have plenty other schemes and control ideas ready to go at a nanosecond notice. They will not stop pushing their hog crap until they are forced to and are held accountable for what they have done or are trying to do.

2A4Cook Member

2A4Cook

Posted
Posted
On 2/10/2025 at 2:49 PM, mauserme said:

You think waiting periods are more constitutionally grounded than the FOID Act?

 

 

 

He's a Democrat -- he thinks they're both constitutional ... just like their illegal, criminal semi-auto ban.  The Constitution is just something they cry about when something happens which they disagree with.  Otherwise, it's used as toilet paper in governmental office buildings.

crufflesmuth Member

crufflesmuth

Posted
Posted (edited)

Per the Maryland State Police website, "...A Handgun Qualification License is not required to possess a handgun that you already legally own...".  

 

Handgun Qualification License

 

That is how bad the FOID Act is. I can absolutely see this being the case, well after the possession requirement is struck down. It makes sense. They keep FTIP database and FOID review infrastructure in place. They could also go scorched earth, similar to Mexico and define everything outside the home as "carry." 

Edited by crufflesmuth

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...