Jump to content

FOID card revoked due to court supervision for misdemeanor traffic violation


Recommended Posts

 

Ordinarily, I'd suspect that the board appointments are empty, but Jeremy Margolis' bio on his law firm's site lists him as current chair of the review board. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're meeting and reviewing anything, though.

Rauners board make up was 4 R's, 2 D's and 1 Independent. Care to bet that changes with JBP appoinments?

 

4 Ds, 3 others. The law that creates the board mandates that no more than 4 members be from the same party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A misdemeanor traffic violation gets a FOID yanked? What a load.
No it's the supervision. The case hasn't been disposed of so it's still active, OP is still under indictment for a crime. This is how the system works. I don't see how yanking gun rights from someone for a completely unrelated (non-violent, nothing to do with guns) crime is logical but that's OK since most of that crap makes no sense.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Im curious about the make up of the current review board. Before, all members were appointed by Rauner and had their term expire in January. Is there a new board or is the old board still acting while awaiting new appointments? Are they meeting the same as when under Rauner? Not sure anyone knows.https://www2.illinois.gov/sites/bac/SitePages/AppointmentsDetail.aspx?BCID=739

Ordinarily, I'd suspect that the board appointments are empty, but Jeremy Margolis' bio on his law firm's site lists him as current chair of the review board. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're meeting and reviewing anything, though.

The last I checked, chief legal counsel Phillip Ackerman was still counsel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just went through this yesterday myself. (actually the reason I joined The forum) we moved, so I updated my address on myFOID card. 6 weeks later I get the letter stating my Foid has been revoked. Immediately called my lawyer, he said he'll look into it. I too was convicted of a Class A reckless driving. But I DID NOT see that for the supervision I could not possess my weapons. Conviction was in Sept, letter came after updating address in March. So yes, I surrendered my foid card, filled out the firearms deposition and transferred my firearms to someone with a valid Foid all yesterday. This is a complete violation of my 2nd amendment right and Im feeling hopeless. Can't win with this state. post-20599-0-96967600-1555173349_thumb.jpgpost-20599-0-84285800-1555173437_thumb.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just went through this yesterday myself. (actually the reason I joined The forum) we moved, so I updated my address on myFOID card. 6 weeks later I get the letter stating my Foid has been revoked. Immediately called my lawyer, he said he'll look into it. I too was convicted of a Class A reckless driving. But I DID NOT see that for the supervision I could not possess my weapons. Conviction was in Sept, letter came after updating address in March. So yes, I surrendered my foid card, filled out the firearms deposition and transferred my firearms to someone with a valid Foid all yesterday. This is a complete violation of my 2nd amendment right and Im feeling hopeless. Can't win with this state. attachicon.gif20190411_235329.jpgattachicon.gif20190413_113656.jpg

 

I strongly urge you to go back to court and get this stricken from your supervision. This one size fits all penalty is not justified for traffic supervision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I just went through this yesterday myself. (actually the reason I joined The forum) we moved, so I updated my address on myFOID card. 6 weeks later I get the letter stating my Foid has been revoked. Immediately called my lawyer, he said he'll look into it. I too was convicted of a Class A reckless driving. But I DID NOT see that for the supervision I could not possess my weapons. Conviction was in Sept, letter came after updating address in March. So yes, I surrendered my foid card, filled out the firearms deposition and transferred my firearms to someone with a valid Foid all yesterday. This is a complete violation of my 2nd amendment right and Im feeling hopeless. Can't win with this state. attachicon.gif20190411_235329.jpgattachicon.gif20190413_113656.jpg

 

I strongly urge you to go back to court and get this stricken from your supervision. This one size fits all penalty is not justified for traffic supervision.

 

 

Molly should I have my lawyer involved with this?? I'm a tradesman, not very law savvy. Also, this appeals process with 3 letters ect ect, it's all beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Molly or anyone else know which Illinois state statute says the ISP can revoke the FOID card for Class A misdemeanor traffic violations?

 

There is no Federal law prohibiting firearms possession for traffic violations.

 

The letter says reason listed below pursuant to: 430 ILCS 65/8 (n)

 

(n) A person who is prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms or firearm ammunition by any Illinois State statute or by federal law;

 

 

(430 ILCS 65/8) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-8)

Sec. 8. Grounds for denial and revocation. The Department of State Police has authority to deny an application for or to revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act only if the Department finds that the applicant or the person to whom such card was issued is or was at the time of issuance:

(a) A person under 21 years of age who has been

 

convicted of a misdemeanor other than a traffic offense or adjudged delinquent;

(B) A person under 21 years of age who does not have

 

the written consent of his parent or guardian to acquire and possess firearms and firearm ammunition, or whose parent or guardian has revoked such written consent, or where such parent or guardian does not qualify to have a Firearm Owner's Identification Card;

© A person convicted of a felony under the laws of

 

this or any other jurisdiction;

(d) A person addicted to narcotics;

(e) A person who has been a patient of a mental

 

health facility within the past 5 years or a person who has been a patient in a mental health facility more than 5 years ago who has not received the certification required under subsection (u) of this Section. An active law enforcement officer employed by a unit of government who is denied, revoked, or has his or her Firearm Owner's Identification Card seized under this subsection (e) may obtain relief as described in subsection (c-5) of Section 10 of this Act if the officer did not act in a manner threatening to the officer, another person, or the public as determined by the treating clinical psychologist or physician, and the officer seeks mental health treatment;

(f) A person whose mental condition is of such a

 

nature that it poses a clear and present danger to the applicant, any other person or persons or the community;

(g) A person who has an intellectual disability;

(h) A person who intentionally makes a false

 

statement in the Firearm Owner's Identification Card application;

(i) An alien who is unlawfully present in the United

 

States under the laws of the United States;

(i-5) An alien who has been admitted to the United

 

States under a non-immigrant visa (as that term is defined in Section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))), except that this subsection (i-5) does not apply to any alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa if that alien is:

(1) admitted to the United States for lawful

 

hunting or sporting purposes;

(2) an official representative of a foreign

 

government who is:

(A) accredited to the United States

 

Government or the Government's mission to an international organization having its headquarters in the United States; or

(B) en route to or from another country to

 

which that alien is accredited;

(3) an official of a foreign government or

 

distinguished foreign visitor who has been so designated by the Department of State;

(4) a foreign law enforcement officer of a

 

friendly foreign government entering the United States on official business; or

(5) one who has received a waiver from the

 

Attorney General of the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(3);

(j) (Blank);

(k) A person who has been convicted within the past 5

 

years of battery, assault, aggravated assault, violation of an order of protection, or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction, in which a firearm was used or possessed;

(l) A person who has been convicted of domestic

 

battery, aggravated domestic battery, or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction committed before, on or after January 1, 2012 (the effective date of Public Act 97-158). If the applicant or person who has been previously issued a Firearm Owner's Identification Card under this Act knowingly and intelligently waives the right to have an offense described in this paragraph (l) tried by a jury, and by guilty plea or otherwise, results in a conviction for an offense in which a domestic relationship is not a required element of the offense but in which a determination of the applicability of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) is made under Section 112A-11.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, an entry by the court of a judgment of conviction for that offense shall be grounds for denying an application for and for revoking and seizing a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued to the person under this Act;

(m) (Blank);

(n) A person who is prohibited from acquiring or

 

possessing firearms or firearm ammunition by any Illinois State statute or by federal law;

(o) A minor subject to a petition filed under Section

 

5-520 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 alleging that the minor is a delinquent minor for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony;

(p) An adult who had been adjudicated a delinquent

 

minor under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony;

(q) A person who is not a resident of the State of

 

Illinois, except as provided in subsection (a-10) of Section 4;

® A person who has been adjudicated as a person

 

with a mental disability;

(s) A person who has been found to have a

 

developmental disability;

(t) A person involuntarily admitted into a mental

 

health facility; or

(u) A person who has had his or her Firearm Owner's

 

Identification Card revoked or denied under subsection (e) of this Section or item (iv) of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of Section 4 of this Act because he or she was a patient in a mental health facility as provided in subsection (e) of this Section, shall not be permitted to obtain a Firearm Owner's Identification Card, after the 5-year period has lapsed, unless he or she has received a mental health evaluation by a physician, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner as those terms are defined in the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code, and has received a certification that he or she is not a clear and present danger to himself, herself, or others. The physician, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner making the certification and his or her employer shall not be held criminally, civilly, or professionally liable for making or not making the certification required under this subsection, except for willful or wanton misconduct. This subsection does not apply to a person whose firearm possession rights have been restored through administrative or judicial action under Section 10 or 11 of this Act.

Upon revocation of a person's Firearm Owner's Identification Card, the Department of State Police shall provide notice to the person and the person shall comply with Section 9.5 of this Act.

(Source: P.A. 98-63, eff. 7-9-13; 98-508, eff. 8-19-13; 98-756, eff. 7-16-14; 99-143, eff. 7-27-15.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FOID card law specifically says even for people under 21 years old that traffic offenses are not grounds for denial of their FOID card.

 

On which Illinois statue is the ISP decision based on to revoke people's FOID cards for traffic offenses?

 

(a) A person under 21 years of age who has been

 

convicted of a misdemeanor other than a traffic offense or adjudged delinquent;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I just went through this yesterday myself. (actually the reason I joined The forum) we moved, so I updated my address on myFOID card. 6 weeks later I get the letter stating my Foid has been revoked. Immediately called my lawyer, he said he'll look into it. I too was convicted of a Class A reckless driving. But I DID NOT see that for the supervision I could not possess my weapons. Conviction was in Sept, letter came after updating address in March. So yes, I surrendered my foid card, filled out the firearms deposition and transferred my firearms to someone with a valid Foid all yesterday. This is a complete violation of my 2nd amendment right and Im feeling hopeless. Can't win with this state. attachicon.gif20190411_235329.jpgattachicon.gif20190413_113656.jpg

I strongly urge you to go back to court and get this stricken from your supervision. This one size fits all penalty is not justified for traffic supervision.

I had my firearm restriction rescinded immediately. It did not stop the state police from revoking my foid card 6 months later.

Edited by SoIllJosh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He voluntarily agreed to all the original conditions of the court-ordered supervision, one of which was surrendering the right to possess firearms. The conditions of the supervision are legally binding, therefore 430 ILCS 65/8 (n) applies (or did apply once). Since that condition no longer applies, his FOID should be restored.

 

There's a deeper problem here, though.

  • Surrendering one's firearms seems to be a standard part of court supervision for misdemeanors.
  • The only misdemeanor (AFAIK) that requires surrendering one's firearms, if convicted, is domestic battery.
  • Domestic battery convictions are not eligible for court supervision as an alternative to incarceration.
  • Therefore there's no reason surrendering one's firearms should ever need to be a condition of court supervision for misdemeanors, much less a standard part of such supervision.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Im curious about the make up of the current review board. Before, all members were appointed by Rauner and had their term expire in January. Is there a new board or is the old board still acting while awaiting new appointments? Are they meeting the same as when under Rauner? Not sure anyone knows.https://www2.illinois.gov/sites/bac/SitePages/AppointmentsDetail.aspx?BCID=739

Ordinarily, I'd suspect that the board appointments are empty, but Jeremy Margolis' bio on his law firm's site lists him as current chair of the review board. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're meeting and reviewing anything, though.

Interesting, it appears that Jeremy is still sporting his ISP lapel in pin on his official bio pic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So to the OP, what part of the State do you call home? It isn't important to your current situation of course, I'm just hoping I'm not sharing any local highways with you behind the wheel. Really? Experienced with enough speeding charges to know what's common for court supervisions and that seems to have taught you durn little if now it's a reckless driving charge?

 

Just my old fart curmudgeonly nature peeking out, but IMHO you should have to pay insurance penalties for reckless driving. Slap on the wrist supervision is B.S. for repeat offenders. IMHO.

 

Don't get angry, if you survive to my age you'll be a cranky useless buzzard too. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are dotting their i's and crossing their t's

Since Aurora it's all out against the FOID Card.

Yes, his was way before that, but they are catching up to their mistakes.

Tried to purchase a firearm, I can see the person placed in front of the computer in Springfield waving their index finger back and forth, no, no, no!

 

I'm not supporting the taking of 2A, but the OP's original post says "Speeding Tickets” with "Court Supervisions” along with knowing the others were normally 3 to 6 months! And now reckless driving, maybe a "Habitual” traffic situation......I don't claim to know every law like some here!

 

My $0.02 is you sign and accept a punishment WITH a lawyer present.

It's on you to hold your end up.

Going back to change the punishment seems a dollar short and a day late. I'm sure the ISP sees it this way too, even if they have the new order.

 

Bottom line, pay the lawyer now since you didn't want to pay the insurance, maybe you'll break even!

 

Medical Professional, really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... the OP's original post says "Speeding Tickets” with "Court Supervisions” along with knowing the others were normally 3 to 6 months! And now reckless driving, maybe a "Habitual” traffic situation......I don't claim to know every law like some here!

...

There's one thing I left out of the story of the woman I knew earlier that may be worth pointing out here, too. Because successfully completing supervision allows people to expunge their records of the charges for which they've been supervised, every time she was caught speeding was her "first" offense.

 

So technically, he's not "habitual." This charge is also his "first" offense.

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like lawyer 'weasel words' to me - LOL. Yer Ahner… my client is a fine upstanding citizen. 175 arrests, no convictions.lol

 

The cop was profiling me........ I bet he wasn't arresting everyone driving 65 on that sidewalk........ I'm a victim!!!!!!!! Oh the humanity!!!!!!!!

 

"Don't sing the blues if you can't pay the dues, don't roll the dice if you can't pay the price."

 

lol

Edited by RandyP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There's no reason to attack anyone here or make assumptions."

 

I too do not understand and am disturbed by a connection between reckless driving and gun rights. The sole 'assumptions' I am making are based on the OP's comments. He has had speeding tickets and is a reckless driver by his own admission. So not so much an assumption on my part as it is a conclusion?

 

I can share best wishes on getting the FOID reinstated while at the same time hoping he is not driving near me at any time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

... the OP's original post says "Speeding Tickets” with "Court Supervisions” along with knowing the others were normally 3 to 6 months! And now reckless driving, maybe a "Habitual” traffic situation......I don't claim to know every law like some here!...

There's one thing I left out of the story of the woman I knew earlier that may be worth pointing out here, too. Because successfully completing supervision allows people to expunge their records of the charges for which they've been supervised, every time she was caught speeding was her "first" offense.So technically, he's not "habitual." This charge is also his "first" offense.

Really, see we all learn something new every day.

So if there is NO record, a good thing, why the larger/longer supervision for a first time offender?

 

Sorry I didn't know the records get wiped like Hillarys HD's/Phones, I stand corrected!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

175 arrests, no convictions.lol

With expungement, that's 0 arrests, no convictions.

 

So if there is NO record, a good thing, why the larger/longer supervision for a first time offender?

Reckless driving probably gets longer supervision time, because it's a more serious charge. It's a Class A misdemeanor vs. a Class B or C misdemeanor. There might be some point to make about leniency leading to escalation, but I think that's for a different thread.

 

Do we know if this firearms wording in court supervision is just related to reckless driving events or might one expect to see in supervion for other traffic violations?

It appears to be true for supervision for any misdemeanor, based on the photo of the supervision documents posted above. Presumably it would apply equally well to littering or jaywalking misdemeanors if the defendant chooses supervision for them. As I posted before, I couldn't think of any misdemeanor that should lead to a suspension of 2A rights, other than domestic violence, which isn't eligible to supervision, although since then I've thought of repeat DUI or drug possession which could disqualify someone from owning a firearm. It still doesn't make sense to me that that's enough to make 2A suspension "standard" for all misdemeanor supervision.

 

It wasn't an issue for the OP's speeding supervision periods, because he didn't try to buy a firearm during them. To the ISP's credit, they don't seem to bother revoking the FOIDs of people who don't try to use their FOIDs (otherwise we'd probably have heard more about it before now).

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's face it. Reckless driving is an easy ticket to get. Often charges like this are completely left to the discretion of the officer.

I built a little (compact) hotrod truck with a V8 in it, and I enjoy driving it a little wild from time to time. I don't endanger others by any stretch of the imagination, but I could be given a reckless driving ticket for giving it a little gas while turning a corner and the rear end kicks out in a small slide.. I obviously don't do this kind of thing around other vehicles but all it would take would be an officer to be tucked behind a sign, etc..

The days of having fun in a vehicle are long gone with everyone being so strict and creating new laws/offenses daily..

Edited by Bird76Mojo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Don't sing the blues if you can't pay the dues, don't roll the dice if you can't pay the price."

 

Let's face it. Reckless driving is an easy ticket to get.

The original poster's situation might be more egregious, but reckless driving tickets are not hard to get.

 

Corrupt towns within towns in Lake County lower country road speed limits from 55 to 30 all the time and run radar in those spots. My dad got nailed for it years back, excess over 35 over on a road that used to be 55.

 

If you don't think corrupt Illinois will find any way possible to take your money and your rights I question which side your on.

 

(625 ILCS 5/11-601.5)

Sec. 11-601.5. Driving 26 miles per hour or more in excess of applicable limit.

(a) A person who drives a vehicle upon any highway of this State at a speed that is 26 miles per hour or more but less than 35 miles per hour in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit established under this Chapter or a local ordinance commits a Class B misdemeanor.

(B) A person who drives a vehicle upon any highway of this State at a speed that is 35 miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit established under this Chapter or a local ordinance commits a Class A misdemeanor.

(Source: P.A. 98-511, eff. 1-1-14.)

Edited by chicagoresident
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just went through this yesterday myself. (actually the reason I joined The forum) we moved, so I updated my address on myFOID card. 6 weeks later I get the letter stating my Foid has been revoked. Immediately called my lawyer, he said he'll look into it. I too was convicted of a Class A reckless driving. But I DID NOT see that for the supervision I could not possess my weapons. Conviction was in Sept, letter came after updating address in March. So yes, I surrendered my foid card, filled out the firearms deposition and transferred my firearms to someone with a valid Foid all yesterday. This is a complete violation of my 2nd amendment right and Im feeling hopeless. Can't win with this state. attachicon.gif20190411_235329.jpgattachicon.gif20190413_113656.jpg

 

Those supervision rules are insane for a traffic (or any other very minor non-violent) offence. They take away all your 2nd amendment rights. And you also need court approval to leave the state for 2 years? No vacations or other travel I guess. How did it get so crazy? Is this in Cook County, or in another county?

 

Court supervision was no big deal in the past; it's the best thing to do with any speeding ticket. Just apply for "court supervision" for any speeding ticket, pay more money to the court, but don't impact your driving record. In the past, it was a checkbox on the ticket. (I'm assuming traffic school is similar to court supervision as they do the same thing...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Corrupt towns within towns in Lake County lower country road speed limits from 55 to 30 all the time and run radar in those spots"

 

So.... if one were going the speed limit and got radared in a quick change 30 MPH zone (I mostly see this after a warning sign before the change myself?) one would 'only' be going 25mph over the limit.....unless one were already speeding?

 

I do agree his lawyer should have advised him about the FOID relationship to the reckless driving charge supervision agreement before he signed it......but I simply have little sympathy or empathy for reckless drivers. Two separate issues conflated in this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my knowledge, according to state law you have 500ft after a posted speed limit sign to reduce your speed to the required limit.. I have a close friend that has used this tactic in court to get his ticket dropped.

However, proving you did reduce your speed in that 500ft or were ticketed within that 500ft can be difficult in a system where you are guilty until proven innocent.

Edited by Bird76Mojo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's time for this old geezer to bail on this thread. It's starting to resemble a journey down the rabbit hole, which often happens on the interwebs - lol

 

Illinois Carry has always championed responsible gun ownership and responsible gun use. I definitely do not always succeed but I do try to act responsibly in my life and in all my activities. I do believe that some folks who are irresponsible in one aspect of their lives 'could' also be irresponsible in others and some in fact are simply generally irresponsible individuals.

 

Reckless and irresponsible are synonyms.

 

'Nuff said for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Corrupt towns within towns in Lake County lower country road speed limits from 55 to 30 all the time and run radar in those spots"

 

So.... if one were going the speed limit and got radared in a quick change 30 MPH zone (I mostly see this after a warning sign before the change myself?) one would 'only' be going 25mph over the limit.....unless one were already speeding?

 

I do agree his lawyer should have advised him about the FOID relationship to the reckless driving charge supervision agreement before he signed it......but I simply have little sympathy or empathy for reckless drivers. Two separate issues conflated in this post.

I think it's time for this old geezer to bail on this thread. It's starting to resemble a journey down the rabbit hole, which often happens on the interwebs - lol

 

Illinois Carry has always championed responsible gun ownership and responsible gun use. I definitely do not always succeed but I do try to act responsibly in my life and in all my activities. I do believe that some folks who are irresponsible in one aspect of their lives 'could' also be irresponsible in others and some in fact are simply generally irresponsible individuals.

 

Reckless and irresponsible are synonyms.

 

'Nuff said for me.

Driving has nothing to do with gun ownership and is not a Constitutional right. If you don't always succeed then don't act holier than thou. Going 35 mph over the limit is easy to do and is considered reckless driving according to the law and is done by the vast majority of drivers on the expressway every day. The limit is kept low artificially to generate revenue and everyone knows it.

 

Cars and technology have advanced a lot from what they were in the 70's. In Germany where there's no speed limit in many places, there's less accidents and deaths than in the US. I will find it hard to believe if anyone hasn't gone 35 mph over the limit. Should you loose your Constitutional rights because of it? You wouldn't be saying is ok if it happened to you.

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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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