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

[mab22]

On 2/11/2025 at 8:36 PM, crufflesmuth said:

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." 

What about subsequent handgun purchases, is a license required for those purchases?
Are rifles exempt?

They also require prints, they are not optional. 

 

Then there is this, a registry!

How can I prove I legally owned a handgun before October 1, 2013 and am therefore exempt from the training requirement? 

When applying for your HQL you will be asked for the serial number of your legally owned handgun. Upon providing that serial number you will have met your obligation.

[splitaxe]

What is next for this case? Does it go to an appellate court, or straight to the Illinois Supreme Court?

[yurimodin]

On 2/11/2025 at 9:45 PM, mab22 said:

What about subsequent handgun purchases, is a license required for those purchases?

In Hawaii you have to get a "permit to acquire" from the HI Sec of State for every single gun purchase.

[soundguy]

Michigan also requires a permit to purchase a handgun, unless you have a CPL (CCL). Although there is no waiting period, the permit to purchase could take up to ten days and is good for only 30 days. 
 

If you already have a MI license to carry concealed, it looks like you can purchase a new pistol without a permit to purchase, and take it home as soon as you have paid for it. This is what I would advocate as a change to the FOID/CCL  in Illinois… as a temporary measure until the FOID is ruled unconstitutional. My intuition says the elimination of the FOID will not happen soon. 
 

 

Cheers,

Tim

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2025 at 04:11 PM by soundguy

[Tip]

IF, and it’s a big IF, you wish to continue with limits on the 2nd then:

CCL should equal permit to carry and permit to purchase with no waiting period.

FOID should be optional (and not required for CCL) and equal permit to purchase with no waiting period. (I.e. for those not possessing CCL).

Those possessing neither CCL, nor FOID should still be allowed to purchase following background check and suitable waiting period.

No permits required to possess/own.

 

 

[soundguy]

On 2/12/2025 at 11:42 AM, Tip said:

IF, and it’s a big IF, you wish to continue with limits on the 2nd then:

CCL should equal permit to carry and permit to purchase with no waiting period.

FOID should be optional (and not required for CCL) and equal permit to purchase with no waiting period. (I.e. for those not possessing CCL).

Those possessing neither CCL, nor FOID should still be allowed to purchase following background check and suitable waiting period.

No permits required to possess/own.

 

 

Yep. 
This could be an interim compromise. 
 

Cheers,

Tim

[crufflesmuth]

On 2/12/2025 at 11:42 AM, Tip said:

IF, and it’s a big IF, you wish to continue with limits on the 2nd then:

CCL should equal permit to carry and permit to purchase with no waiting period.

FOID should be optional (and not required for CCL) and equal permit to purchase with no waiting period. (I.e. for those not possessing CCL).

Those possessing neither CCL, nor FOID should still be allowed to purchase following background check and suitable waiting period.

No permits required to possess/own.

 

 

 

Absolutely not. 

 

The discussion on Maryland's permit to purchase is simply an illustration of how bad the possession requirement of the FOID really is. 

 

Registry? We have that: it's called FTIP. If they cannot get FTIP,

they can inspect dealer records per the licensing act.

 

4473's, transaction numbers, not a single legal firearm sold within Illinois

is not known and well-documented to both the dealer that sold it and the

State Police information protocol that handled it.

 

I would prefer no waiting period for CCL's and just a 4473, however this is

Illinois. 

 

 

 

[Euler]

On February 12, 2025 at 05:22 AM CST, splitaxe said:→

What is next for this case? Does it go to an appellate court, or straight to the Illinois Supreme Court?

Constitutional issues skip the state appellate court and go straight to the Illinois Supreme Court, assuming Raoul petitions (which he probably will). Invoking Bruen in the ruling provides a better path to the US Supreme Court eventually, too. I wouldn't count on that, though.

[Euler]

It's a big day on YouTube for this case.

[TomKoz]

SO do those whoever got tried and convicted of violating the FOID Laws get their convictions overturned, reimbursed for their legal fees, and justly compensated?

 

Unconstitutional laws do not / should not be followed.

 

Break out the Illinois taxpayer checkbook !

 

Has PICA Law ever been enforced?

 

They Know It’s Unconstitutional !

Edited February 13, 2025 at 08:13 AM by TomKoz

[burningspear]

Put the cork back in the bottle. Wait until the Illinois Supreme Court gets the case. Who knows what that court will do......................

[djmarkla]

Democrats own the Illinois supreme court.

[EdDinIL]

Waiting for the state to "accidentally" revoke all FOIDs to comply with the ruling.

[Black Flag]

On 2/13/2025 at 9:23 AM, djmarkla said:

Democrats own the Illinois supreme court.

At least one (D)im realizes the optics are really bad on that.

Black Flag found this today on a IL (D)im Legislative Clown Blog.

 

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=104&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=143&GAID=18&SessionID=114&LegID=157357

 

Short Description:  JUDICIAL CAMPAIGN REFORM

Senate Sponsors
Sen. Rachel Ventura

 

Synopsis As Introduced
Creates the Judicial Campaign Reform Act. Creates a voluntary program of public financing of election campaigns for the offices of judges of the Illinois Supreme Court and Appellate Court, administered by the State Board of Elections. Establishes funding mechanisms, terms of participation, and a process for the certification of candidates. Sets mandatory contribution limits with respect to all judicial election campaigns. Provides for penalties for violations of the Act. Makes other changes. Amends the State Finance Act to create the Illinois Judicial Election Democracy Trust Fund. Amends the Illinois Income Tax Act to make conforming changes. Effective January 1, 2026.

 

News article:
https://www.wcia.com/news/capitol-news/illinois-bill-looks-to-minimize-private-donors-influence-on-judicial-elections/

 

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WCIA) —Illinois judicial campaigns have become very expensive, with interest groups and wealthy donors throwing around lots of cash to get their favorite judge on the bench. This has raised questions about the fairness of the election and money’s influence on the campaign.

 

Sen. Rachel Ventura (D-Joliet) filed a bill looking to reduce the influence of private donors in Supreme Court and Appellate Court races. This will allow candidates to use public funds instead of interest group funds. She filed the bill in response to the record-breaking amount of money spent in the 2022 Illinois Supreme Court Elections. 

 

She said this legislation would keep judicial elections balanced and the candidates wouldn’t feel like they are indebted to a single person or organization. 

 

“The goal is to allow all judges to have the same opportunity, “ Ventura said. “And to get rid of that kind of off-putting feeling that someone is donating to a judge who may then later be making decisions that harm or hurt them or help them.”

Edited February 13, 2025 at 04:07 PM by Black Flag

[yurimodin]

On 2/13/2025 at 2:04 AM, TomKoz said:

Has PICA Law ever been enforced?

I think ONE guy got charged on it up north. It was a gangbanger drug bust and they were just throwing every charge they could think of at him.

[mab22]

On 2/13/2025 at 10:05 AM, Black Flag said:

At least one (D)im realizes the optics are really bad on that.

Black Flag found this today on a IL (D)im Legislative Clown Blog.

 

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=104&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=143&GAID=18&SessionID=114&LegID=157357

 

Short Description:  JUDICIAL CAMPAIGN REFORM

Senate Sponsors
Sen. Rachel Ventura

 

Synopsis As Introduced
Creates the Judicial Campaign Reform Act. Creates a voluntary program of public financing of election campaigns for the offices of judges of the Illinois Supreme Court and Appellate Court, administered by the State Board of Elections. Establishes funding mechanisms, terms of participation, and a process for the certification of candidates. Sets mandatory contribution limits with respect to all judicial election campaigns. Provides for penalties for violations of the Act. Makes other changes. Amends the State Finance Act to create the Illinois Judicial Election Democracy Trust Fund. Amends the Illinois Income Tax Act to make conforming changes. Effective January 1, 2026.

 

News article:
https://www.wcia.com/news/capitol-news/illinois-bill-looks-to-minimize-private-donors-influence-on-judicial-elections/

 

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WCIA) —Illinois judicial campaigns have become very expensive, with interest groups and wealthy donors throwing around lots of cash to get their favorite judge on the bench. This has raised questions about the fairness of the election and money’s influence on the campaign.

 

Sen. Rachel Ventura (D-Joliet) filed a bill looking to reduce the influence of private donors in Supreme Court and Appellate Court races. This will allow candidates to use public funds instead of interest group funds. She filed the bill in response to the record-breaking amount of money spent in the 2022 Illinois Supreme Court Elections. 

 

She said this legislation would keep judicial elections balanced and the candidates wouldn’t feel like they are indebted to a single person or organization. 

 

“The goal is to allow all judges to have the same opportunity, “ Ventura said. “And to get rid of that kind of off-putting feeling that someone is donating to a judge who may then later be making decisions that harm or hurt them or help them.”

My money is on that bill going nowhere. Now she gets to say to her donors and constituents that she “TRIED”, and should get a gold star for her efforts AND she should be re-elected for her efforts. 
 

 

[THE KING]

Any updates on this case. Has the state asked for a stay or are they just going to ignore the judges opinion. 

[Euler]

On February 15, 2025 at 03:44 PM CST, THE KING said:→

Any updates on this case. Has the state asked for a stay or are they just going to ignore the judges opinion.

The White County order is a ruling on a motion to find the FOID unconstitutional, not a ruling on the case as a whole. Additionally, no enforcement has been enjoined. Nobody can buy and keep firearms without a FOID in Illinois.

Meanwhile, the state can take its time asking the Illinois Supreme Court to vacate the ruling on the motion. Then the Illinois Supreme Court will take its time trying to find a way to remand the case back to county court without providing a basis to petition the ruling to the US Supreme Court.

Patience is required.

[TomKoz]

On 2/15/2025 at 11:21 PM, Euler said:

The White County order is a ruling on a motion to find the FOID unconstitutional, not a ruling on the case as a whole. Additionally, no enforcement has been enjoined. Nobody can buy and keep firearms without a FOID in Illinois.

Meanwhile, the state can take its time asking the Illinois Supreme Court to vacate the ruling on the motion. Then the Illinois Supreme Court will take its time trying to find a way to remand the case back to county court without providing a basis to petition the ruling to the US Supreme Court.

Patience is required.

In other words … your Rights are still Infringed.

[ragsbo]

On 2/15/2025 at 11:21 PM, Euler said:

The White County order is a ruling on a motion to find the FOID unconstitutional, not a ruling on the case as a whole. Additionally, no enforcement has been enjoined. Nobody can buy and keep firearms without a FOID in Illinois.

Meanwhile, the state can take its time asking the Illinois Supreme Court to vacate the ruling on the motion. Then the Illinois Supreme Court will take its time trying to find a way to remand the case back to county court without providing a basis to petition the ruling to the US Supreme Court.

Patience is required.

"Patience" has all been used up! Time to get it settled! Rights are being denied and abused.

[Vodoun da Vinci]

On 2/16/2025 at 10:29 AM, ragsbo said:

"Patience" has all been used up! Time to get it settled! Rights are being denied and abused.

Completely agreed. What is your Plan to resolve this? Is there more that can be done than is already being done? I'd love to see a resolution to this and PICA but the process seems slow and tedious.

 

VooDoo

[ragsbo]

On 2/16/2025 at 10:38 AM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

Completely agreed. What is your Plan to resolve this? Is there more that can be done than is already being done? I'd love to see a resolution to this and PICA but the process seems slow and tedious.

 

VooDoo

wish I had a clue! Every thing I think of would better be left unsaid. Right now the courts are worthless and the word leaves a very very bad taste in my mouth.

[Euler]

In today's weekly bulletin, the ISRA says the state has petitioned the IL Supreme Court about the latest county court ruling.

[ragsbo]

On 5/15/2025 at 6:31 PM, Euler said:

In today's weekly bulletin, the ISRA says the state has petitioned the IL Supreme Court about the latest county court ruling.

And since they are bought and paid for by fat boy, we know what they will do. Again, barf!

[Upholder]

On 5/15/2025 at 9:45 PM, ragsbo said:

And since they are bought and paid for by fat boy, we know what they will do. Again, barf!

 

They will bob and duck and weave and completely avoid the constitutional question by overturning it on some procedural grounds... like the previous times this case has been before them.

[Molly B.]

The State has dropped its Illinois Supreme Court appeal in the Vivian Brown FOID case, which has effectively short-circuited the constitutional issue.  The recent Fourth District Appellate Court ruling in Guns Save Life v. Raoul, which upheld the FOID requirement as constitutional and all the lower courts have to follow it until there is an Appellate Court split, or the Illinois Supreme Court voluntarily takes up the issue in a different case.

The case will be sent back to White County, Illinois where the prosecution may drop the charge, or the prosecution may still try to keep the case pending.

 

Disappointing.

[2smartby1/2]

Typical

[John Q Public]

Yup, stall, or obfuscate. There is no way this gets solved without changing tactics. ~sad~

[yurimodin]

So can she go buy a gun without the FOID now?

[Euler]

On July 14, 2025 at 09:31 AM CDT, yurimodin said:→

So can she go buy a gun without the FOID now?

It is not possible to read any court ruling that way.

At most (at one time), the county court had ruled that a FOID was not required to keep a loaded firearm in the home.

As of now, the county court can issue a ruling consistent with the FOID being found constitutional in the GSL case or the prosecution can drop the case.

Edited July 14, 2025 at 08:56 PM by Euler