Jump to content

ISRA Alert - ISRA/SAF file federal lawsuit demanding State Police stop FOID card delay (Bradley v. Kelly)


Recommended Posts

(May be better suited in the judicial forum, feel free to move mods)

ISRA/SAF file federal lawsuit demanding State Police stop FOID card delay

As you well know, the delays in handling FOID card applications has become a nightmare for Illinois gun owners. After months of negotiations, we have not been able to make any progress with the Illinois State Police, leaving us with little choice but to file a lawsuit.

Today, the Illinois State Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation have filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to force the Illinois State Police (ISP) to comply with the mandated 30-day requirement to issue a Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) Card if the applicant meets all qualifications.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on behalf of D’Andre Bradley, David D. Moore and Tara D. Moore, and Brett O. Shelton. They are represented by attorneys David G. Sigale of Wheaton, Ill., Gregory A. Bedell of Chicago, and Jacob Huebert of Phoenix, Ariz. The case is supported by the Goldwater Institute. The lawsuit is known as Bradley v. Kelly.

Named as defendants are ISP Director Brendan F. Kelly and ISP Firearms Services Bureau Chief Jessica Trame, in their official capacities.

The law requires that the Illinois State Police either approve or deny a FOID card application within 30 days, but ISP has been dragging its feet, leaving applicants in limbo for months. In some cases, the agency does not act for as long as 90 day. These delays have gone on long enough. We had hoped to avoid litigation, but at this moment, we have no choice.

We will keep you updated on the lawsuit as it unfolds. We have not lost in court yet and we are hopeful that streak continues.

Edited by Craigcelia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lawsuit PDF is also at SAF if you have issues with redirect above.

 

https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/1-Complaint.pdf

 

ISRA member alert link for above posted by Craig

 

https://archive.aweber.com/awlist4894361/E9Icd/h/ISRA_Alert_ISRA_SAF_File.htm

Edited by InterestedBystander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m sure there will be some BS ruling “cause ya know there’s a pandemic and it makes it harder so it’s doubly ok to screw citizens, and it’s the state protecting every one BS.
I don’t see a way this gets spun into the FOID being an infringement and going away, I doubt the 30 days would even be reduced.

Guess I’m just pessimistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my understanding that Jessica Trame Butler is no longer the ISP FSB chief, may not be with the ISP at all.

 

It's one thing if the officeholder changes after you filed suit...

this is like filing "People vs Lisa Madigan" today instead of Raoul,

Shes still listed on the Comptrollers employee list with same title with the ISP since 2018 and last paid 7/13/2020

 

TRAME BUTLER, JESSICA DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE

 

AGENCY POSITION LAST PAID DT ISSUE YEAR

DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE SENIOR PUBLIC SERVICE ADMINISTR 07/13/2020 2020

Edited by InterestedBystander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have difficulty understanding why ISRA has seemingly never been interested in legal action to stop the FOID law as an violation of civil rights. It seems it is willing to sue to enforce the elements of the law when those elements are violated by the state, but have not attacked the law itself. Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems asking permission from the state to exercise a civil right, and then being required to pay money to do it, is unconstitutional. If I’m being naive please tell me. If there is another agenda I’d like to know. I’m not being argumentative or trying to diminish the ISRA with my question. I simply do not understand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What needs to happen with this situation is that if it can be shown that the FOID card program has interfered with the civil and Constitutionally protected right of someone to be able to keep and bear arms, in a timely and reasonable fashion, which is actual harm, then it should be abolished and made forevermore illegal.

 

Because if that can happen in the past, despite the supposed mechanisms and laws in place that are meant to facilitate people getting their FOID in a time frame that allows them to exercise that right, then it can happen AGAIN in the future.

 

Thus, since it cannot be guaranteed not to henceforth interfere with citizens' rights, it is a violation of the Constitution and MUST be made illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What needs to happen with this situation is that if it can be shown that the FOID card program has interfered with the civil and Constitutionally protected right of someone to be able to keep and bear arms, in a timely and reasonable fashion, which is actual harm, then it should be abolished and made forevermore illegal.

 

Because if that can happen in the past, despite the supposed mechanisms and laws in place that are meant to facilitate people getting their FOID in a time frame that allows them to exercise that right, then it can happen AGAIN in the future.

 

Thus, since it cannot be guaranteed not to henceforth interfere with citizens' rights, it is a violation of the Constitution and MUST be made illegal.

A good analogy is the CCW law for the state of Hawaii. In theory there is a shall issue law on the books.

In reality, There is no documented case in which one was issued. Even retired LEOs who are eligible under the federal HR218 are denied permits. So far no LEO has that I’ve been able to find. Why not? Because when you submit a FOIA request for information about CCW permit requests and denials it is simply ignored. The state and county officials will not even acknowledge a FOIA request was received.

 

Hawaii gets away with multiple constitutional violations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What needs to happen with this situation is that if it can be shown that the FOID card program has interfered with the civil and Constitutionally protected right of someone to be able to keep and bear arms, in a timely and reasonable fashion, which is actual harm, then it should be abolished and made forevermore illegal.

 

Because if that can happen in the past, despite the supposed mechanisms and laws in place that are meant to facilitate people getting their FOID in a time frame that allows them to exercise that right, then it can happen AGAIN in the future.

 

Thus, since it cannot be guaranteed not to henceforth interfere with citizens' rights, it is a violation of the Constitution and MUST be made illegal.

A good analogy is the CCW law for the state of Hawaii. In theory there is a shall issue law on the books.

In reality, There is no documented case in which one was issued. Even retired LEOs who are eligible under the federal HR218 are denied permits. So far no LEO has that I’ve been able to find. Why not? Because when you submit a FOIA request for information about CCW permit requests and denials it is simply ignored. The state and county officials will not even acknowledge a FOIA request was received.

 

Hawaii gets away with multiple constitutional violations.

 

 

That's what's being challenged in Young v. Hawaii, right?

 

We need something like that here, with the standard of proof being that if . . .

 

A: Has the FOID system caused even ONE person to be denied their ability to legally keep and bear arms within a reasonable time frame (we'll use the 30 days that Illinois law currently has as the deadline to issue or deny a FOID card)?

 

If the answer is "yes," and especially if the answer is "yes" for multiple or, even worse, MANY people have been denied their right to keep and bear arms, as reserved and protected by the Second Amendment and the Illinois Constitution, Section 22, which reads . . .

 

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
. . . then the following MUST be the ruling:
B: Because of actual, permanent, and unrecoverable harm (it's impossible to go back in time to restore the lost ability to exercise the violated right), the FOID card represents an inherent potential future violation of such rights, and is thus required to be illegal.
The standard should be, and objectively IS, as simple as that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

What needs to happen with this situation is that if it can be shown that the FOID card program has interfered with the civil and Constitutionally protected right of someone to be able to keep and bear arms, in a timely and reasonable fashion, which is actual harm, then it should be abolished and made forevermore illegal.

 

Because if that can happen in the past, despite the supposed mechanisms and laws in place that are meant to facilitate people getting their FOID in a time frame that allows them to exercise that right, then it can happen AGAIN in the future.

 

Thus, since it cannot be guaranteed not to henceforth interfere with citizens' rights, it is a violation of the Constitution and MUST be made illegal.

A good analogy is the CCW law for the state of Hawaii. In theory there is a shall issue law on the books.

In reality, There is no documented case in which one was issued. Even retired LEOs who are eligible under the federal HR218 are denied permits. So far no LEO has that I’ve been able to find. Why not? Because when you submit a FOIA request for information about CCW permit requests and denials it is simply ignored. The state and county officials will not even acknowledge a FOIA request was received.

 

Hawaii gets away with multiple constitutional violations.

 

 

That's what's being challenged in Young v. Hawaii, right?

 

We need something like that here, with the standard of proof being that if . . .

 

A: Has the FOID system caused even ONE person to be denied their ability to legally keep and bear arms within a reasonable time frame (we'll use the 30 days that Illinois law currently has as the deadline to issue or deny a FOID card)?

 

If the answer is "yes," and especially if the answer is "yes" for multiple or, even worse, MANY people have been denied their right to keep and bear arms, as reserved and protected by the Second Amendment and the Illinois Constitution, Section 22, which reads . . .

 

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
. . . then the following MUST be the ruling:
B: Because of actual, permanent, and unrecoverable harm (it's impossible to go back in time to restore the lost ability to exercise the violated right), the FOID card represents an inherent potential future violation of such rights, and is thus required to be illegal.
The standard should be, and objectively IS, as simple as that.

 

I still don't understand this part of the Illinois Constitution - "SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power,the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

Since the police fall under the executive branch that means subject to the Governors office?

 

The Police fall under the executive branch and they are not the/a 4th branch.

Police" only show up once in the constitution and it is section 22. https://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/conent.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't understand this part of the Illinois Constitution - "SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power,the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

...

It means the police, without restraint, can infringe your right to keep and bear arms. However, state law (including the state constitutions) still does not supersede federal law. It would be interesting if the governor or AG argued that any state/county/municipal law that attempts to restrict police power over private firearms is unconstitutional.

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's what's being challenged in Young v. Hawaii, right?

...

Young v Hawaii is an open carry case. If Young can't carry his revolver concealed, he wants to carry it openly. Hawaii's strategy seems to be to delay the case until after Young dies, thus making it moot. Young is like 70 years old now.

 

 

I thought it was because Hawaii had never issued a concealed carry permit, and so Young sought to carry openly, and since Hawaii wasn't allowing either to be permitted, that Young was challenging the state on grounds that they did not allow the bearing of arms, as protected by the Second Amendment, under any licensing scheme.

 

So, wouldn't it kind of be about both, since if you can't do either, the the right is being infringed completely in any event?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I still don't understand this part of the Illinois Constitution - "SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power,the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."...

It means the police, without restraint, can infringe your right to keep and bear arms. However, state law (including the state constitutions) still does not supersede federal law. It would be interesting if the governor or AG argued that any state/county/municipal law that attempts to restrict police power over private firearms is unconstitutional.

The “police power” is a constitutional law term that predates the modern concept of a police departments or officers. Here’s the definition from a legal dictionary “ Police power describes the basic right of governments to make laws and regulations for the benefit of their communities.”

 

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Police+Power

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The “police power” is a constitutional law term ...

 

OK, thanks.

Yep, so our RKBA in the IL constitution basically says "Congress shall make no law...unless Congress makes a law"

It potentially could be read that way, however most ILSC case law reads it in lockstep with the Federal 2nd Amendment language. Granted, precedent is only as binding as they want it to be, so they aren’t absolutely bound by that reading.

 

HOWEVER, while a State Constitution can grant individuals broader rights than the US Constitution, when the US Constitution grants broader rights than the State Constitution the US Constitution always controls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grew up in Pennsylvania. There is not and has never been a FOID for firearms ownership in Pennsylvania. There have been numerous court cases addressing the right to carry concealed and/or the prohibition of concealed carry dating back to 1875. Carry licenses have been issued in Pennsylvania since at least the 1980s (Philadelphia used to not issue them, and had special carve-outs, but all that has disappeared). For reference to this discussion, the Pennsylvania constitution says, “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.” (Article 1, Section 21).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sad to see that this lawsuit had to be filed, but the ISP needs to stop being a political football and do their job and get these FOID cards out in a timely manner. There's no excuse for 90-120 days on CCL permits either, since it's the same printing process, and the background check doesn't take an extra 60-90 days.

You need to remember that Brendan Kelly used to be the State's Attorney in St. Clair county, probably the second most entrenched dumbocrat stronghold outside of Crook county. Kelly is a good "puppet" who follows orders from above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In PA was there ever a fee that had to be paid to own a gun? I'm just curious because they had mentioned something about a fee on the radio in PA that the courts struck down due to having to pay to have 2nd amendment rights. Just curious. But that story was a couple of months or so ago, so maybe I'm mistaken. Was just curious.
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

×
×
  • Create New...