Hart vs. ISP - would allow FOID applicants to read their own files

[hceuterpe]

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and addresses of FOID card holders" but argues that he already knows his own name, address, and that his FOID card was revoked.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.

[mab22]

That was issues was discussed here, not the case itself but that whole process of finding out how you got on the naughty list.

https://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?/topic/80220-isp-is-revoking-for-old-clear-present-danger-reports-hundreds-possibly-thousands/
 

[Euler]

On 1/27/2023 at 9:01 PM, hceuterpe said:

...

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.  ...

 

Duel process is a judicial thing. The police acting on their own authority (by unjust laws) necessarily avoids due process. ISP made similar claims about revoked FOIDs under the C&PD statute. ISP used the law for confidentiality to protect the people who revoked the FOIDs.

[mab22]

On 1/27/2023 at 11:03 PM, Euler said:

 

Duel process is a judicial thing. The police acting on their own authority (by unjust laws) necessarily avoids due process. ISP made similar claims about revoked FOIDs under the C&PD statute. ISP used the law for confidentiality to protect the people who revoked the FOIDs.

So due process for “some”?

 

[Euler]

On 1/28/2023 at 12:03 AM, Euler said:

Duel process ...

 

Wow, what a typo! That's "due" (although maybe it's a Freudian slip for trial by combat).

 

On 1/28/2023 at 1:15 AM, mab22 said:

So due process for “some”?

 

I think nobody sees due process. The privileged get genuine violations swept under the rug. The unprivileged get the wrong end of an executive action.

[hceuterpe]

There in lies another problem:  If due process is strictly a judicial instrument, seems like it's busted as heck when an executive branch agency unconstitutionally gets the power to act like a court?

 

FOID days are numbered.  I'd love to hear the state and its goons argue the constitutionality when it's the same group of people decrying that it's unconstitutional to show ID to vote (it's the closest comparison I can currently think of because using the example of requiring drivers licenses is totally flawed)...

Edited January 28, 2023 at 04:16 PM by hceuterpe

[mab22]

On 1/28/2023 at 10:10 AM, hceuterpe said:

There in lies another problem:  If due process is strictly a judicial instrument, seems like it's busted as heck when an executive branch agency unconstitutionally gets the power to act like a court?

 

Ironically the congress bypasses the judicial and gives the executive branch the power to act like it’s own court. They call it administrative hearings, and they can fine you, not tell the state what you did, kinda like a legal bribe. But if you don’t comply (pay up), THEN you get the full force and brass knuckles of all the actions that the local gov can throw at you via the state. 
What kind of third world BS is that?
 

[John Q Public]

JCAR is a nice little bypass of the body. 😱

[Euler]

On 1/28/2023 at 4:09 PM, mab22 said:

Ironically the congress bypasses the judicial and gives the executive branch the power to act like it’s own court. ...

 

The executive branch gets around it by saying you committed a civil infraction instead of a crime, so you can be punished without being convicted.

[Flynn]

On 1/28/2023 at 4:55 PM, Euler said:

 

The executive branch gets around it by saying you committed a civil infraction instead of a crime, so you can be punished without being convicted.

 

On that note, it should be easy enough to argue that a protected civil right can not be denied nor infringed by an administrative civil infration body of the executive branch or one created and empowered by the legislative branch.  Only the judicial branch should be allowed to deny a civil right and only by due process.

[mab22]

On 1/28/2023 at 11:02 PM, Flynn said:

 

On that note, it should be easy enough to argue that a protected civil right can not be denied nor infringed by an administrative civil infration body of the executive branch or one created and empowered by the legislative branch.  Only the judicial branch should be allowed to deny a civil right and only by due process.

And yet we still have” red light “ and “speed cameras” which go to civil/administrative process and not a REAL court.  
I’m waiting for them to pull that 💩 with firearms and ammunition and some “civil” rule/fine/other. 
 

[MRE]

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in favor of ISP, in a unanimous opinion

 

https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/648d8ed7-be80-4d48-9cdc-efb5a69178e0/Hart v. Illinois State Police, 2023 IL 128275.pdf

[Tango7]

On 1/28/2023 at 10:10 AM, hceuterpe said:

FOID days are numbered.  I'd love to hear the state and its goons argue the constitutionality when it's the same group of people decrying that it's unconstitutional to show ID to vote (it's the closest comparison I can currently think of because using the example of requiring drivers licenses is totally flawed)...

 

How much is the cost of the ID required to exercise your right to vote? What options are available on election day to those that have not registered?

 

Hmmm. Not at all like our ability to exercise our enumerated 2A Rights, is it?

 

Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 “The state cannot diminish Rights of the people.”

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.”

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105 The state may not convert a secured liberty into a privilege, and issue a license and fee for it.

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262 “If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and charge a fee for it, you can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.”

 

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 11/30/2023 at 8:21 PM, Tango7 said:

 

How much is the cost of the ID required to exercise your right to vote? What options are available on election day to those that have not registered?

 

Hmmm. Not at all like our ability to exercise our enumerated 2A Rights, is it?

 

Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 “The state cannot diminish Rights of the people.”

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.”

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105 The state may not convert a secured liberty into a privilege, and issue a license and fee for it.

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262 “If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and charge a fee for it, you can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.”

 

I've been saying that for years, the state shouldn't be able to charge for a constitutional right and I'll add at this point to vote they should require the ID in hand and they need to call the state and make sure it's still valid, just like a FOID.   

 

 

[THE KING]

 

Latest update 

 

 

[mab22]

So go to a court and get a court order to release YOUR information is what ILSC is saying?

The ISP "claiims" that FOIA isn't the appropriate route.

So why didn't they just state that in the initial court case and suggest, as an alternative, that the plantiff could request an "order by the court" to obtain the records? Would have saved everyone time and money.

 

Was the ISP attorney paid for by the hour and not an actual state employee?