Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,428 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 12 June 2020 - 12:52 AM

Didnt see this listed elsewhere

Sigale Files in Illinois Supreme Court to Reinforce FOID Relief Statute

https://sigalelaw.co...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.co...endix-POS-1.pdf

Edited by InterestedBystander, 09 March 2021 - 04:11 PM.

NRA Life Member; ISRA Member
SAF Member; GOA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸

#2 bmyers

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,467 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 12 June 2020 - 05:16 AM

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.


Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA

ISRA Member


#3 Benbow

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Joined: 30-October 19

Posted 14 June 2020 - 09:11 PM

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.



#4 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,754 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted 15 June 2020 - 07:27 AM

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.uscou...23/10-36094.pdf


"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly,
flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to
intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."
-Chicago Times review of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.


#5 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,428 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 05 March 2021 - 05:52 PM

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

https://archive.aweb...y_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.


NRA Life Member; ISRA Member
SAF Member; GOA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸

#6 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 17,461 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 05 March 2021 - 06:26 PM

Looking forward to this one.


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#7 tcstoner

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • Joined: 26-December 20

Posted 06 March 2021 - 05:53 AM

Here's a new case just filed.  Trying to stop CCW delays.  Luce v. Kelly, 1:21-cv-01250 – CourtListener.com



#8 tcstoner

  • Members
  • 27 posts
  • Joined: 26-December 20

Posted 06 March 2021 - 05:58 AM

Here's are two other cases currently pending in federal court as well.

 

Thomas v. Kelly, 1:20-cv-00734 – CourtListener.com

 

Bradley v. Kelly, 1:20-cv-04270 – CourtListener.com



#9 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,428 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 06 March 2021 - 01:48 PM

Here's a new case just filed.  Trying to stop CCW delays.  Luce v. Kelly, 1:21-cv-01250 – CourtListener.com

https://illinoiscarr...topic=77406&hl=
NRA Life Member; ISRA Member
SAF Member; GOA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸

#10 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 17,461 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 09 March 2021 - 11:29 AM

The Evans case scheduled for Wed., March 10 will be streamed live:

 

https://livestream.c.../events/9537630


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#11 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 17,461 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 10 March 2021 - 10:38 AM

Video going live now.


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#12 starwatcher

  • Members
  • 8 posts
  • Joined: 27-September 20

Posted 10 March 2021 - 10:52 AM

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, 10 March 2021 - 10:58 AM.


#13 MRE

  • Members
  • 36 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 20

Posted 10 March 2021 - 12:06 PM

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, 10 March 2021 - 12:06 PM.


#14 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,518 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 10 March 2021 - 12:33 PM

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.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#15 MrSmallie

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 82 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 17

Posted 20 March 2021 - 09:10 AM

For anyone who wants to review it:

 

https://livestream.c...ideos/218572635

 

Starts at around 1:36:50






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users