Guns Save Life vs Kwame Raoul- Challenges FOID Act

[MrTriple]

On 7/18/2023 at 6:43 PM, Upholder said:

Held to be constitutional in all respects.

 

 

I'm not the least bit surprised.

 

We need federal cases, not state.

[ealcala31]

On 7/18/2023 at 7:27 PM, MrTriple said:

I'm not the least bit surprised.

 

We need federal cases, not state.

I don't think we would fare much better unless we make it to SCOTUS. Look at the PICA case, after NYSRPA, it should be a slam dunk on the 2A side.

[MrTriple]

On 7/18/2023 at 9:45 PM, ealcala31 said:

I don't think we would fare much better unless we make it to SCOTUS. Look at the PICA case, after NYSRPA, it should be a slam dunk on the 2A side.

It isn't so much a question of reliability, it's more a question of what sort of arguments would be presented in federal versus state court.

 

If we want SCOTUS to take a FOID case, the questions presented in the lower courts need to directly address the merits of the FOID Act, but in a manner that the High Court would be willing to accept them.

 

As we saw with Brown, the State Supreme Court went out of it's way to avoid addressing the Second Amendment question and tried getting the case thrown out on some other basis. If Brown were appealed to SCOTUS they'd likely reject it for that reason.

 

That's because the State Supreme Court cannot rule on the FOID without dooming it. If they uphold it, that opens a path straight to SCOTUS. And they will never strike it down, so that isn't even worth mentioning. More likely than not they'll pull another Brown in this case, as it's the only viable option available to them.

 

Any FOID lawsuit must be federal.

Edited July 19, 2023 at 03:16 AM by MrTriple

[lilguy]

The FOID may not be the right thing to do, but that doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional. I have had mine 52 years, was told it’s likely unconstitutional when I applied back then. Been told the same numerous times over the 50+ years. I don’t/we don’t like it, but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional. Only the last highest courts can settle it, if they decide to take a case. 🤞not holding my breath.

[ealcala31]

On 7/18/2023 at 10:15 PM, MrTriple said:

It isn't so much a question of reliability, it's more a question of what sort of arguments would be presented in federal versus state court.

 

If we want SCOTUS to take a FOID case, the questions presented in the lower courts need to directly address the merits of the FOID Act, but in a manner that the High Court would be willing to accept them.

 

As we saw with Brown, the State Supreme Court went out of it's way to avoid addressing the Second Amendment question and tried getting the case thrown out on some other basis. If Brown were appealed to SCOTUS they'd likely reject it for that reason.

 

That's because the State Supreme Court cannot rule on the FOID without dooming it. If they uphold it, that opens a path straight to SCOTUS. And they will never strike it down, so that isn't even worth mentioning. More likely than not they'll pull another Brown in this case, as it's the only viable option available to them.

 

Any FOID lawsuit must be federal.

It's unfortunate to say that even by posing a rational argument, one that SCOTUS will accept, will still force it to go to SCOTUS. The rest of the Courts in the state and federal level know the same thing, as you stated above, if they rule against it they will doom it. The majority of the IL Court System, whether state or federal, will look at a finding that will appease the political powers that be. It is really difficult, during this time in America, to trust the Criminal Justice System to do what it was intended to do. I will fight, but I have lost faith...

[Upholder]

 

[lilguy]

The one FOID case where it was ruled against was I believe a woman and a personal gun in her home. Where did  that end up? It was a bit ago.

[mab22]

On 7/18/2023 at 6:43 PM, Upholder said:

Held to be constitutional in all respects.

 

 

So we can own tanks, fighter jets, artillery, etc with a FOID is how I just heard that.

[mab22]

On 7/19/2023 at 11:41 AM, lilguy said:

The one FOID case where it was ruled against was I believe a woman and a personal gun in her home. Where did  that end up? It was a bit ago.

That was Brown -

 

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

On 7/18/2023 at 10:49 PM, lilguy said:

The FOID may not be the right thing to do, but that doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional. I have had mine 52 years, was told it’s likely unconstitutional when I applied back then. Been told the same numerous times over the 50+ years. I don’t/we don’t like it, but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional. Only the last highest courts can settle it, if they decide to take a case. 🤞not holding my breath.

ALL gun laws are unconstitutional. ALL.

But having said that, paying to exercise a right is unconstitutional. Having to wait to exercise a right is unconstitutional? Losing your right on a whim or technicality is unconstitutional. 
 

Edited July 19, 2023 at 09:27 PM by AlphaKoncepts aka CGS

[SiliconSorcerer]

Should be a charge to get a voting card and vote then, it's CLEARLY more dangerous in Illinois to allow some people to vote.

[JTHunter]

On 7/20/2023 at 7:29 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

Should be a charge to get a voting card and vote then, it's CLEARLY more dangerous in Illinois to allow some people to vote.

 

Applause !!

[davel501]

Anyone know the current status of this case? The loss of the FOID would be fatal the to pica registration requirements. 

[JTHunter]

Wasn't there a case in the last 5-10 years where a woman (middle-aged to elderly), possibly in Cook County, was arrested & charged for having a handgun in her home for her defense?  The catch was she didn't have a FOID.  IIRC, the court decided that this woman was entitled to keep the gun w/o a FOID as the gun never left the house.

Anybody remember this case? 🤔

[Euler]

You're probably thinking of People v Brown. She's not elderly. It was a 22LR rifle.

[Upholder]

 

[MrTriple]

On 11/14/2024 at 11:35 AM, Upholder said:

 

Was this removed to State court?

[Upholder]

This has always been a state case, not a federal one.

[MrTriple]

On 11/14/2024 at 11:07 PM, Upholder said:

This has always been a state case, not a federal one.

Hmm, I thought it had been removed to federal.

 

That being said, I still don't understand why they're filing in state court when that's never gonna pan out. The strategy, if there even is one, isn't a smart strategy at all.

[davel501]

On 11/15/2024 at 8:42 AM, MrTriple said:

Hmm, I thought it had been removed to federal.

 

That being said, I still don't understand why they're filing in state court when that's never gonna pan out. The strategy, if there even is one, isn't a smart strategy at all.

 

Get your losses quickly and appeal straight to SCOTUS. I can't make sense of it myself. 

[ragsbo]

On 12/10/2023 at 10:57 PM, Euler said:

You're probably thinking of People v Brown. She's not elderly. It was a 22LR rifle.

And supposedly it only applied to her, no one else!

[starwatcher]

 

Its still going on, but it gets REALLY good when it's Notz turn to speak.

Edited December 19, 2024 at 07:40 PM by starwatcher

[bmyers]

I missed it. Logged in just in time to hear them going to recess. 

[Upholder]

In the rebuttal, the plaintiff's lawyer missed the opportunity to point out that NYSRPA v Bruen explicitly disallows any interest balancing when they asked the FOID being a "minimal intrusion on someone's Second Amendment right, does that matter?"

[Upholder]

Today, the 4th District Appellate Court upheld the law as constitutional, 2-1.

 

 

[EdDinIL]

So, appeal to ILSC next?  Then 7th Circuit?  Then SCOTUS?  Awesome, FOID will be unconstitutional in 2031.

[Euler]

I know I've posted this a couple times before, but the two paths to the US Supreme Court are:

Federal district court → Federal appellate court → US Supreme Court

State trial court (typically county court) → State appellate court → State supreme court → US Supreme Court

[TomKoz]

Congress should enact a law … once the SCOTUS Rules  … any of the inferior court judges lose their positions AND pensions if those inferior court judges ruled on the losing side !!!

 

Only downside I see is that it opens the process to even more possible corruption and payoffs.    SOLUTION:  SCOTUS Justices AND family members SHALL allow their finances to be forensically audited every year.

 

Same above process for State Supreme Courts !

Edited April 30, 2025 at 03:42 AM by TomKoz
Added last line.

[Kingcreek]

On 4/29/2025 at 10:24 PM, EdDinIL said:

So, appeal to ILSC next?  Then 7th Circuit?  Then SCOTUS?  Awesome, FOID will be unconstitutional in 2031.

I like your optimism.

[Upholder]

Mark Smith's discussion of the appellate decision