hceuterpe Posted January 28, 2023 at 02:01 AM Share Posted January 28, 2023 at 02:01 AM Surprised to have not seen this discussion already here. https://casetext.com/case/hart-v-the-ill-state-police https://madisonrecord.com/stories/632954967-supreme-court-will-hear-state-police-appeal-in-foid-case-state-wants-to-keep-wraps-on-applicant-files There are actually two plaintiffs. What I find extra egregious is this snippet: ¶ 27 "[A] court presumes that the General Assembly did not intend absurdity, inconvenience, or injustice in enacting legislation." People v. Casler, 2020 IL 125117, ¶ 24. Here, Burgess states that "it makes absolute sense for the government to keep private names and addresses of FOID card holders" but argues that he already knows his own name, address, and that his FOID card was revoked. Burgess argues that he "just wants to know why" (emphasis in original) in order to seek an appeal of the revocation. We agree. Not sure how you could possibly claim the FOID system and especially appeals procedure affords adequate due process when ISP goes so far as to deny releasing information about your revocation to help you appeal it, on FOIA exemption grounds. And then further fights tooth and nail to appeal to the (IL?) supreme court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now