Jump to content

Evans vs ISP / Sigale Files in Illinois Supreme Court to Reinforce FOID Relief Statute


Recommended Posts

Didnt see this listed elsewhere

 

Sigale Files in Illinois Supreme Court to Reinforce FOID Relief Statute

 

https://sigalelaw.com/sigale-files-in-illinois-supreme-court-to-reinforce-foid-relief-statute/

 

...A few months back, an Illinois Appellate Court ruled that those who sought relief for their denied or revoked FOID cards could never get such relief because of the way the law was written. So Alfred Evans, Jr., a man with a checkered youth but now a fine family man and business owner, could not get his FOID application denial reversed, even as the Appellate Court said it would do so if the law were not written in such a way that its hands were tied. David Sigale, with co-counsel Bryant Chavez, is litigating Mr. Evans case in the Illinois Supreme Court to get this wrongful interpretation of Illinois law reversed (See below), so that Mr. Evans and other deserving individuals like him can fully enjoy their Second Amendment rights...

 

https://sigalelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Sigale-Law-Evans-Appellants-Brief-COC-Appendix-POS-1.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish him luck. I'm glad he is challenging the law. People make mistakes, especially in their younger days. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for the crime because they are young, yet once the punishment is paid and the person has proven that he/she can make the right choices, then consideration should be given to restoring the rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the appellate court got it wrong, the fact of the matter is his lawyer missed the most obvious thing in the world. Other than machineguns, federal law does not prohibit ANYONE from possessing firearms, only firearms that have moved in or affected interstate commerce. Domestic Illinois made firearms that have not crossed a state line can be possessed, at least under federal law, by felons and crazy people in Illinois. Thus, the section at issue, is actually meaningless. His lawyer should have known that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the appellate court got it wrong, the fact of the matter is his lawyer missed the most obvious thing in the world. Other than machineguns, federal law does not prohibit ANYONE from possessing firearms, only firearms that have moved in or affected interstate commerce. Domestic Illinois made firearms that have not crossed a state line can be possessed, at least under federal law, by felons and crazy people in Illinois. Thus, the section at issue, is actually meaningless. His lawyer should have known that.

Technically the Federal government can only regulate interstate commerce in machine guns as well, however the courts have affirmed that intra-state commerce in firearms can have an effect on the market nationally, thus federal law can regulate that as well

 

The panel then held that the complaint failed to state a claim in light of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), and United States v. Stewart, 451 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2006), and that Congress could rationally conclude that unlicensed firearms made in Montana would make their way into the interstate market. The panel held that the MFFA was necessarily preempted and invalid.

 

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/08/23/10-36094.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Im assuming this is the same case the ISRA referred to this week?

 

https://archive.aweber.com/awlist4894361/C0cBF/h/ISRA_Thursday_Bulletin_.htm

 

Our ISRA attorney will be before the Illinois Supreme Court on March 10, 2021, regarding the FOID Restoration case, Evans v. Illinois State Police and Cook County State’s Attorney. This is when arguments will be heard. The decision may take some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised the Supreme Court is asking the Attorney representing Evans for examples and how to interpret the law in which a person is not worthy of having their rights restored. Those questions are more relevant to the Attorneys representing the Government.

 

Even the AGA thinks the appellate court decision was absurd. HAH

 

"Holistic test" if someone is worthy of having their rights restored; Which means how we feel this day or after we consulted the Ouija board

Edited by starwatcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised the Supreme Court is asking the Attorney representing Evans for examples and how to interpret the law in which a person is not worthy of having their rights restored. Those questions are more relevant to the Attorneys representing the Government.

 

Even the AGA thinks the appellate court decision was absurd. HAH

 

"Holistic test" if someone is worthy of having their rights restored; Which means how we feel this day or after we consulted the Ouija board

Thats because the Appellate Court opinion was absurd. The Appellate Court twisted and completely bungled the arguments made to them. Hopefully the ILSC straightens it out and doesnt throw out the baby out with the bath water and bite on Cook Countys crazy interpretation. I dont think the State even agreed with that insanity. Unless their position has since changed. Edited by MRE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised the Supreme Court is asking the Attorney representing Evans for examples and how to interpret the law in which a person is not worthy of having their rights restored. ...

It's not unusual for an appellate or supreme court to ask both sides for what they would consider to be exceptions to their arguments. Appellate and supreme courts are essentially discussions among lawyers about what the law is (or what it should be).

 

Trial courts are adversarial debates about facts, in which each side takes a position about what truly happened and what didn't happen. During a trial, there is no debate about the law itself. If the two sides don't agree on the law, the judge rules in the middle of the procedure when the issue arises so the trial can continue, and that's the end of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 months later...
On 3/10/2021 at 12:33 PM, Euler said:

It's not unusual for an appellate or supreme court to ask both sides for what they would consider to be exceptions to their arguments. Appellate and supreme courts are essentially discussions among lawyers about what the law is (or what it should be).

 

Trial courts are adversarial debates about facts, in which each side takes a position about what truly happened and what didn't happen. During a trial, there is no debate about the law itself. If the two sides don't agree on the law, the judge rules in the middle of the procedure when the issue arises so the trial can continue, and that's the end of it.

Sorry could someone sum up his answer? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SiliconSorcerer:

 

I'll try to provide another interpretation of Euler's comments.  First, courts decide disagreements.  Disagreements can be over the facts of the matter or over elements of the law.  (e.g. "Did you punch me?"  is a question of fact.  "Is punching really illegal" is question of law.)   The lower courts (either with a jury or a bench trial decided by a judge) are charged with establishing the facts.  If a question of law arises, the judge will rule on the law and provide instruction to the jury so that they can get on with determining the facts.  However, these questions of law can be important and disagreeing on the law is common among lawyers.  Indeed, most of our 2A questions are really questions of law not fact.  (E.g. "Did you have a foid?"=fact.  "Do you need to have a FOID to exercise a fundamental right?" =question of law).  When lawyers disagree with a judge's ruling on the law, there is a process for appeal to a high court.  The higher court generally does not establish facts, but rather only looks at the facts as determined below in the context of the law.  The hearing at a higher level court is typically a discussion between lawyers and judges about what the law means. Lawyers are expected to be able to suggest their interpretation of the law, why it is most proper, what problems might arise if the judge rules in their favor, etc. etc.  These discussions can be very insightful or quickly get absurd depending on the skill of the lawyer and whim of the judge.  If the ultimate ruling isn't favorable, the losing party can appeal to an even higher court, which may or may not take the case (depending on circumstance and whether the court has the power to decide what it will take).  The IL supreme court generally has the final say on state law and the US supreme court has the final say on all matters (though typically defers on matters of state law).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Molly B. changed the title to Evans vs ISP / Sigale Files in Illinois Supreme Court to Reinforce FOID Relief Statute
  • Molly B. pinned this topic

This appears to be a major win!  The IL Supreme Court continues to rule in the favor of Second Amendment rights in this decisions which says restoring firearm rights to felons who have maintained a clean record for 10 yrs for non-violent convictions (20 yrs. for violent convictions) is not contrary to federal law.

 

Deficiencies in Mr. Evans original petition have been noted and he may re-petition circuit court for a FOID card.

 

1. Letters of character reference need to address  the petitioners capacity to handle the responsibilities  inherent  in  firearm  ownership.

 

2. Letters of character reference need to provide sufficient information about their interactions with petitioner or how often these interactions occurred.

 

3. Petitioner should offer specifics as to how he would be able to carry out the significant responsibilities of owning a firearm, and

 

4. If petitioner’s felony convictions are for drug offenses related to addiction, petitioner should explain any treatment and successful rehabilitation.

 

cont'd editing  - check back for updates.

 

 

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...