MrTriple Posted July 19, 2023 at 12:27 AM Share Posted July 19, 2023 at 12:27 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ealcala31 Posted July 19, 2023 at 02:45 AM Share Posted July 19, 2023 at 02:45 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted July 19, 2023 at 03:15 AM Share Posted July 19, 2023 at 03:15 AM (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilguy Posted July 19, 2023 at 03:49 AM Share Posted July 19, 2023 at 03:49 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ealcala31 Posted July 19, 2023 at 04:03 AM Share Posted July 19, 2023 at 04:03 AM 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted July 19, 2023 at 04:31 PM Share Posted July 19, 2023 at 04:31 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilguy Posted July 19, 2023 at 04:41 PM Share Posted July 19, 2023 at 04:41 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted July 19, 2023 at 05:32 PM Share Posted July 19, 2023 at 05:32 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted July 19, 2023 at 06:06 PM Share Posted July 19, 2023 at 06:06 PM 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 - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaKoncepts aka CGS Posted July 19, 2023 at 09:26 PM Share Posted July 19, 2023 at 09:26 PM (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiliconSorcerer Posted July 20, 2023 at 12:29 PM Share Posted July 20, 2023 at 12:29 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTHunter Posted July 21, 2023 at 03:32 AM Share Posted July 21, 2023 at 03:32 AM 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 !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davel501 Posted November 27, 2023 at 03:37 AM Share Posted November 27, 2023 at 03:37 AM Anyone know the current status of this case? The loss of the FOID would be fatal the to pica registration requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTHunter Posted December 11, 2023 at 03:27 AM Share Posted December 11, 2023 at 03:27 AM 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? 🤔 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted December 11, 2023 at 04:57 AM Share Posted December 11, 2023 at 04:57 AM You're probably thinking of People v Brown. She's not elderly. It was a 22LR rifle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted November 14, 2024 at 05:35 PM Share Posted November 14, 2024 at 05:35 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted November 15, 2024 at 04:54 AM Share Posted November 15, 2024 at 04:54 AM On 11/14/2024 at 11:35 AM, Upholder said: Was this removed to State court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted November 15, 2024 at 05:07 AM Share Posted November 15, 2024 at 05:07 AM This has always been a state case, not a federal one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted November 15, 2024 at 02:42 PM Share Posted November 15, 2024 at 02:42 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davel501 Posted November 15, 2024 at 04:07 PM Share Posted November 15, 2024 at 04:07 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragsbo Posted November 15, 2024 at 10:25 PM Share Posted November 15, 2024 at 10:25 PM 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starwatcher Posted December 19, 2024 at 07:38 PM Share Posted December 19, 2024 at 07:38 PM (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmyers Posted December 19, 2024 at 08:07 PM Share Posted December 19, 2024 at 08:07 PM I missed it. Logged in just in time to hear them going to recess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upholder Posted December 20, 2024 at 01:44 AM Share Posted December 20, 2024 at 01:44 AM 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?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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