InterestedBystander Posted June 12, 2020 at 06:52 AM Posted June 12, 2020 at 06:52 AM Didnt see this listed elsewhere Sigale Files in Illinois Supreme Court to Reinforce FOID Relief Statute https://sigalelaw.com/sigale-files-in-illinois-supreme-court-to-reinforce-foid-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.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Sigale-Law-Evans-Appellants-Brief-COC-Appendix-POS-1.pdf
bmyers Posted June 12, 2020 at 11:16 AM Posted June 12, 2020 at 11:16 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.
Benbow Posted June 15, 2020 at 03:11 AM Posted June 15, 2020 at 03:11 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.
defaultdotxbe Posted June 15, 2020 at 01:27 PM Posted June 15, 2020 at 01:27 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.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.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/08/23/10-36094.pdf
InterestedBystander Posted March 5, 2021 at 11:52 PM Author Posted March 5, 2021 at 11:52 PM Im assuming this is the same case the ISRA referred to this week? https://archive.aweber.com/awlist4894361/C0cBF/h/ISRA_Thursday_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. Posted March 6, 2021 at 12:26 AM Posted March 6, 2021 at 12:26 AM Looking forward to this one.
tcstoner Posted March 6, 2021 at 11:53 AM Posted March 6, 2021 at 11:53 AM Here's a new case just filed. Trying to stop CCW delays. Luce v. Kelly, 1:21-cv-01250 – CourtListener.com
tcstoner Posted March 6, 2021 at 11:58 AM Posted March 6, 2021 at 11:58 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
InterestedBystander Posted March 6, 2021 at 07:48 PM Author Posted March 6, 2021 at 07:48 PM Here's a new case just filed. Trying to stop CCW delays. Luce v. Kelly, 1:21-cv-01250 – CourtListener.comhttps://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=77406&hl=
Molly B. Posted March 9, 2021 at 05:29 PM Posted March 9, 2021 at 05:29 PM The Evans case scheduled for Wed., March 10 will be streamed live: https://livestream.com/blueroomstream/events/9537630
starwatcher Posted March 10, 2021 at 04:52 PM Posted March 10, 2021 at 04:52 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
MRE Posted March 10, 2021 at 06:06 PM Posted March 10, 2021 at 06:06 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 boardThats 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.
Euler Posted March 10, 2021 at 06:33 PM Posted March 10, 2021 at 06:33 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.
MrSmallie Posted March 20, 2021 at 03:10 PM Posted March 20, 2021 at 03:10 PM For anyone who wants to review it: https://livestream.com/blueroomstream/events/9537630/videos/218572635 Starts at around 1:36:50
MrSmallie Posted August 20, 2021 at 04:46 AM Posted August 20, 2021 at 04:46 AM Is there any clue when the Illinois SC might produce more opinions? The website hasn't been updated in awhile.
Euler Posted August 20, 2021 at 06:09 AM Posted August 20, 2021 at 06:09 AM illinoiscourts.gov has a list of the opinions. There are a few opinions filed every month. As I post, the most recent are three opinions from July. Going back a few months, it seems opinions are always filed on Thursdays. There's only one Thursday left in August, but then there's also September, October, November, ....
SiliconSorcerer Posted August 20, 2021 at 01:08 PM Posted August 20, 2021 at 01:08 PM On 3/10/2021 at 12:33 PM, Euler said: 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. Sorry could someone sum up his answer?
Silhouette Posted August 20, 2021 at 02:03 PM Posted August 20, 2021 at 02:03 PM SiliconSorcerer: I'll try to provide another interpretation of Euler's comments. First, courts decide disagreements. Disagreements can be over the facts of the matter or over elements of the law. (e.g. "Did you punch me?" is a question of fact. "Is punching really illegal" is question of law.) The lower courts (either with a jury or a bench trial decided by a judge) are charged with establishing the facts. If a question of law arises, the judge will rule on the law and provide instruction to the jury so that they can get on with determining the facts. However, these questions of law can be important and disagreeing on the law is common among lawyers. Indeed, most of our 2A questions are really questions of law not fact. (E.g. "Did you have a foid?"=fact. "Do you need to have a FOID to exercise a fundamental right?" =question of law). When lawyers disagree with a judge's ruling on the law, there is a process for appeal to a high court. The higher court generally does not establish facts, but rather only looks at the facts as determined below in the context of the law. The hearing at a higher level court is typically a discussion between lawyers and judges about what the law means. Lawyers are expected to be able to suggest their interpretation of the law, why it is most proper, what problems might arise if the judge rules in their favor, etc. etc. These discussions can be very insightful or quickly get absurd depending on the skill of the lawyer and whim of the judge. If the ultimate ruling isn't favorable, the losing party can appeal to an even higher court, which may or may not take the case (depending on circumstance and whether the court has the power to decide what it will take). The IL supreme court generally has the final say on state law and the US supreme court has the final say on all matters (though typically defers on matters of state law).
Texasgrillchef Posted August 30, 2021 at 04:40 PM Posted August 30, 2021 at 04:40 PM As far as I can tell. They have not released an opinion on this case?
Molly B. Posted September 1, 2021 at 03:25 AM Posted September 1, 2021 at 03:25 AM Correct, still waiting.
Molly B. Posted September 2, 2021 at 02:51 PM Posted September 2, 2021 at 02:51 PM Ruling issued this morning. See attached. Still reading for analysis of the opinion. IL Supreme court decision Evans v. Cook County State’s Attorney, 2021 IL 125513.pdf
Molly B. Posted September 2, 2021 at 03:15 PM Posted September 2, 2021 at 03:15 PM This appears to be a major win! The IL Supreme Court continues to rule in the favor of Second Amendment rights in this decisions which says restoring firearm rights to felons who have maintained a clean record for 10 yrs for non-violent convictions (20 yrs. for violent convictions) is not contrary to federal law. Deficiencies in Mr. Evans original petition have been noted and he may re-petition circuit court for a FOID card. 1. Letters of character reference need to address the petitioners capacity to handle the responsibilities inherent in firearm ownership. 2. Letters of character reference need to provide sufficient information about their interactions with petitioner or how often these interactions occurred. 3. Petitioner should offer specifics as to how he would be able to carry out the significant responsibilities of owning a firearm, and 4. If petitioner’s felony convictions are for drug offenses related to addiction, petitioner should explain any treatment and successful rehabilitation. cont'd editing - check back for updates.
MRE Posted September 2, 2021 at 07:29 PM Posted September 2, 2021 at 07:29 PM The Court gets this one right. Had Cook County’s interpretation, and the crazy Appellate Court decision, won out, it would’ve essentially been the end of felony relief. Which would’ve been an absurdity. Even the State knew this.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.