14 replies to this topic

[InterestedBystander]

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.

[bmyers]

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.

[Benbow]

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.

[defaultdotxbe]

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

[InterestedBystander]

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.

[Molly B.]

Looking forward to this one.

[tcstoner]

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

[tcstoner]

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

[InterestedBystander]

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=

[Molly B.]

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

 

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

[Molly B.]

Video going live now.

[starwatcher]

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.

[MRE]

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.

[Euler]

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.

[MrSmallie]

For anyone who wants to review it:

 

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

 

Starts at around 1:36:50