Euler Posted March 5, 2026 at 10:20 PM Posted March 5, 2026 at 10:20 PM Based on today's ISRA weekly bulletin, the prosecution has dropped the case against Brown. The rest of us have to follow the same rules as ever. I think this topic can be unpinned.
John Q Public Posted March 6, 2026 at 10:34 PM Posted March 6, 2026 at 10:34 PM It's what they do, if they are going to lose, they limit it to one person, and round we go.
ragsbo Posted March 7, 2026 at 12:23 AM Posted March 7, 2026 at 12:23 AM On 3/6/2026 at 4:34 PM, John Q Public said: It's what they do, if they are going to lose, they limit it to one person, and round we go. And there is not way that is legal! The state can violate everyones rights but one person????????
ealcala31 Posted March 7, 2026 at 12:37 AM Posted March 7, 2026 at 12:37 AM So, did the state automatically give her a FOID Card?
Euler Posted March 7, 2026 at 01:05 AM Posted March 7, 2026 at 01:05 AM Brown has always been eligible for a FOID, but for whatever reasons she never applied for one. The state (i.e., White County ASA Chris Neal) has simply chosen to stop trying to prosecute her for not having one.
mikew Posted March 7, 2026 at 05:08 AM Posted March 7, 2026 at 05:08 AM On 3/6/2026 at 6:23 PM, ragsbo said: And there is not way that is legal! The state can violate everyones rights but one person???????? ¿Do you think that her rights were not violated?
Euler Posted March 7, 2026 at 05:44 AM Posted March 7, 2026 at 05:44 AM On March 6, 2026 at 11:08 PM CST, mikew said:→¿Do you think that her rights were not violated? That probably depends on whether she got to keep the rifle. She certainly got a lot of due process.
TomKoz Posted March 7, 2026 at 04:13 PM Posted March 7, 2026 at 04:13 PM On 3/6/2026 at 11:44 PM, Euler said: That probably depends on whether she got to keep the rifle. She certainly got a lot of due process. All of that due process was an Infringement !
ragsbo Posted March 7, 2026 at 07:27 PM Posted March 7, 2026 at 07:27 PM On 3/6/2026 at 11:08 PM, mikew said: ¿Do you think that her rights were not violated? Yes they were, but so were all the rest of the folks in this state
mikew Posted March 7, 2026 at 08:31 PM Posted March 7, 2026 at 08:31 PM On 3/6/2026 at 11:44 PM, Euler said: That probably depends on whether she got to keep the rifle. She certainly got a lot of due process. She got put through the legal system for something that would get you hardly noticed in other states, or an "attagirl." This thing dragged out for 9 years or so. for a constitutionally protected activity. Meanwhile, in this 9 years, was she under felony indictment? Could she have even made the decision to get a FOID?
Tvandermyde Posted March 8, 2026 at 03:27 PM Posted March 8, 2026 at 03:27 PM I think the new tactic should ask the Court for a writ of replevin for the rifle. And see if the sheriff fights it since she doesn't have a FOID card
mab22 Posted March 9, 2026 at 04:19 AM Posted March 9, 2026 at 04:19 AM (edited) On 3/8/2026 at 10:27 AM, Tvandermyde said: I think the new tactic should ask the Court for a writ of replevin for the rifle. And see if the sheriff fights it since she doesn't have a FOID card Maybe a better move would be to chip away at FOID. Example, attack FOID requirement for possession “in the home”, firearm, ammo, and accoutrements. I think there is some in LITH that recently got a personal SWAT demonstration over some ammo. Don’t know if there was anything else involved. Edited March 9, 2026 at 04:19 AM by mab22
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now