Jump to content

Guns Save Life vs Kwame Raoul- Challenges FOID Act


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

I found the sound quality very difficult to hear but some good arguments were made. This is a civil lawsuit challenging the FOID Act which is broader in scope than Brown, Brown case which is criminial case that is narrow in scope based on the original case arguments. The GSL case is being heard in IL Appellate Court, Fourth District. The questioning posed by the judges is very interesting.

 

 

Case No. 4-19-0334

https://multimedia.illinois.gov/court/AppellateCourt/Audio/2019/4th/100819_4-19-0334.mp3

 

This link much easier to hear: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=05930942564648374183

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cant get it to play on my tablet. An alternative link...

 

http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Media/Appellate/4th_District.asp

 

multimedia.illinois.gov/court/AppellateCourt/Audio/2019/4th/100819_4-19-0334.mp3

 

Quality is poor with extreme low audio.

Edited by InterestedBystander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found the sound quality very difficult to hear but some good arguments were made.

 

I ran the audio file through a few quicky filters (compressor, hiss reduction, normalizer and converted to mono) nothing to brag about just default filters, but it makes it easier to hear/listen to.

 

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=05930942564648374183

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I found the sound quality very difficult to hear but some good arguments were made.

 

I ran the audio file through a few quicky filters (compressor, hiss reduction, normalizer and converted to mono) nothing to brag about just default filters, but it makes it easier to hear/listen to.

 

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=05930942564648374183

 

 

WOW!!!! Much better, thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

After listening, IF 'Fix the FOid passes', I think the state is going to have a hard time defending those raises in renewal AND limited to in person at ISP locations as NOT being an undo burden. Thier whole argument in this case, seems to me, that FOID is constitutional because it isn't an undo burden on a person, assuming they are law abiding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After listening, IF 'Fix the FOid passes', I think the state is going to have a hard time defending those raises in renewal AND limited to in person at ISP locations as NOT being an undo burden. Thier whole argument in this case, seems to me, that FOID is constitutional because it isn't an undo burden on a person, assuming they are law abiding.

I thought they dropped the in-person requirement in a later amendment? Edited by InterestedBystander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

After listening, IF 'Fix the FOid passes', I think the state is going to have a hard time defending those raises in renewal AND limited to in person at ISP locations as NOT being an undo burden. Thier whole argument in this case, seems to me, that FOID is constitutional because it isn't an undo burden on a person, assuming they are law abiding.

I thought they dropped the in-person requiremment in a later amendment?

 

Did they? Maybe so. Hope so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Appellate Court agrees with District Court - denies preliminary injunction.

 

https://courts.illinois.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2019/4thDistrict/4190334.pdf

"In balancing the equities of this claim, we find a preliminary injunction is not warranted." . . .

 

While plaintiff has demonstrated a fair question as to each of the elements required, granting the preliminary injunction would change the status quo and would not benefit the public interest. In so finding, we make no judgment as to the final merits of plaintiff’s claims, nor do we suggest the FOID Act’s restrictions are mere inconveniences. Instead, we reemphasize the heavy burden a plaintiff must meet to receive a preliminary injunction, particularly in the context of constitutional challenges where the granting of an injunction would have far-reaching consequences for the public. . .

 

Defendants contend the FOID Act fees help defray the expenses associated with administrating the statute. Plaintiff does not dispute this fact, recognizing “the cost of making a FOID card is about equal to the application fee.” Because both parties acknowledge this fact, it is again reasonable to find that the fee has a legitimate purpose of defraying the expenses incident to the administration and enforcement of the licensing statute. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to show it would likely be successful on the merits of its claim.

 

- 22 -¶ 80III. CONCLUSION

 

81For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

 

¶ 82Affirmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it. They are simply saying that due to receiving an ID card worth the approximate value of the fee, that it's OK to restrict a Constitutional Right? OK, where are Mandatory REAL Voter Cards? And what about Freedom of Speech cards? Do we now need to register for every frigging right we have? What a cluster.

Edited by mrmagloo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it. ...

The case is still live. There's just no injunction pending the final outcome of the case. However, part of the logic of denying the injunction is that the court thinks Guns Save Life is going to lose the case eventually, anyway.

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm following, but the fact that they think restricting a right by a licensing scheme is OK, simply because the fee is reasonable in exchange for the cost of the license itself is mind numbing. That's like saying it's OK for the government to charge a mandatory fee to tattoo a barcode on your forehead, if the fee is roughly inline with the cost of the damn tattoo. What the h e l l does that have to do with the core loss of Constitutionally GUARANTEED Rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Appellate Court agrees with District Court - denies preliminary injunction.

 

https://courts.illinois.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2019/4thDistrict/4190334.pdf

 

"In balancing the equities of this claim, we find a preliminary injunction is not warranted." . . .

 

While plaintiff has demonstrated a fair question as to each of the elements required, granting the preliminary injunction would change the status quo and would not benefit the public interest. In so finding, we make no judgment as to the final merits of plaintiff’s claims, nor do we suggest the FOID Act’s restrictions are mere inconveniences. Instead, we reemphasize the heavy burden a plaintiff must meet to receive a preliminary injunction, particularly in the context of constitutional challenges where the granting of an injunction would have far-reaching consequences for the public. . .

 

Defendants contend the FOID Act fees help defray the expenses associated with administrating the statute. Plaintiff does not dispute this fact, recognizing “the cost of making a FOID card is about equal to the application fee.” Because both parties acknowledge this fact, it is again reasonable to find that the fee has a legitimate purpose of defraying the expenses incident to the administration and enforcement of the licensing statute. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to show it would likely be successful on the merits of its claim.

 

- 22 -¶ 80III. CONCLUSION

 

81For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

 

¶ 82Affirmed.

 

 

That was only on the Tax portion, I thought they were agreeing with the plaintiff on the First portion which was the FOID ACT being unconstitutional.

Edited by mab22
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
  • Molly B. changed the title to Guns Save Life vs Kwame Raoul- Challenges FOID Act
  • Molly B. pinned this topic

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...