Jump to content


Photo

People v. Brown - FOID ruled unconstituional in IL District Court


  • Please log in to reply
431 replies to this topic

#391 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,365 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 07 April 2020 - 10:18 AM

Read 430 ILCS 65 Firearm Owners Identification Act.  Section 2 is very clear.



#392 OneGun

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 69 posts
  • Joined: 25-February 18

Posted 12 April 2020 - 05:47 PM

I curious about how the IL SC would rule on this situation.  A mother has a FOID card and owns several firearms.  Her son gets released from prison and is now a prohibited person.  Mom leaves the house to get groceries and leaves the guns at home.  The son is at the home.  Is the son now constructively in possession of a firearm as a prohibited person and he is now committing a crime while he sits at home watching a football game?

 

I think this situation is where the constitutionality of the FOID card becomes really murky.

 

I'm not an attorney, but I envision this situation exists in many homes right now.


Annoy a Liberal, Get a Job!


#393 davel501

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 18

Posted 12 April 2020 - 06:31 PM

I curious about how the IL SC would rule on this situation.  A mother has a FOID card and owns several firearms.  Her son gets released from prison and is now a prohibited person.  Mom leaves the house to get groceries and leaves the guns at home.  The son is at the home.  Is the son now constructively in possession of a firearm as a prohibited person and he is now committing a crime while he sits at home watching a football game?
 
I think this situation is where the constitutionality of the FOID card becomes really murky.
 
I'm not an attorney, but I envision this situation exists in many homes right now.


As long as they are locked up in a way he doesn't have access to them it is fine. If she leaves one out he's taking a ride.

#394 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,468 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 12 April 2020 - 06:54 PM

Does she have to lock up her 80 lowers and the drill press? How about the reloading equipment? / purple ^ this ***

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#395 SiliconSorcerer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,146 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 12

Posted 14 April 2020 - 02:21 PM

 

I curious about how the IL SC would rule on this situation.  A mother has a FOID card and owns several firearms.  Her son gets released from prison and is now a prohibited person.  Mom leaves the house to get groceries and leaves the guns at home.  The son is at the home.  Is the son now constructively in possession of a firearm as a prohibited person and he is now committing a crime while he sits at home watching a football game?
 
I think this situation is where the constitutionality of the FOID card becomes really murky.
 
I'm not an attorney, but I envision this situation exists in many homes right now.


As long as they are locked up in a way he doesn't have access to them it is fine. If she leaves one out he's taking a ride.

 

Being in the same household as a firearm is not in itself possession, locked up or not.


You give peace a chance; I'll cover you if it doesn't work out.

 

Remington Historical Foundation - 501©3 - donate to me ;) 

NRA Benefactor Member

Gun Owners of America

Remington Society of America Life Member

Ruger Collectors Association Life Member

Texas Gun Collector Honorary Member

Colt Collectors Association Honorary Member

Ruger Society Honorary Member

etc etc etc

 


#396 davel501

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 18

Posted 14 April 2020 - 04:26 PM

 

 

I curious about how the IL SC would rule on this situation.  A mother has a FOID card and owns several firearms.  Her son gets released from prison and is now a prohibited person.  Mom leaves the house to get groceries and leaves the guns at home.  The son is at the home.  Is the son now constructively in possession of a firearm as a prohibited person and he is now committing a crime while he sits at home watching a football game?
 
I think this situation is where the constitutionality of the FOID card becomes really murky.
 
I'm not an attorney, but I envision this situation exists in many homes right now.


As long as they are locked up in a way he doesn't have access to them it is fine. If she leaves one out he's taking a ride.

 

Being in the same household as a firearm is not in itself possession, locked up or not.

 

 

If he is the only resident of the house that is home he is in control of the house and its contents. Some states require that you know the firearm is there but I don't think Illinois is one of them.



#397 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,898 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 15 April 2020 - 04:23 AM

I curious about how the IL SC would rule on this situation.  A mother has a FOID card and owns several firearms.  Her son gets released from prison and is now a prohibited person.  Mom leaves the house to get groceries and leaves the guns at home.  The son is at the home.  Is the son now constructively in possession of a firearm as a prohibited person and he is now committing a crime while he sits at home watching a football game?

 

I think this situation is where the constitutionality of the FOID card becomes really murky.

 

I'm not an attorney, but I envision this situation exists in many homes right now.

 

I actually have experience with this, they will likely charge the prohibited person with constructive possession if the firearm is in the same building and not locked away where said prohibited person couldn't readilly readily gain access.  Same with any bullets at the location.  In my case the individual was not only charged with constructive possession of my firearm they were also charged with of constructive possession for each and every bullet in the magazine and in the box of ammo in the drawer.  And of course my lawfully owned firearm was confiscated.  In the end all the constructive possession charges ended up getting dropped in a plea and my firearm was eventually returned but I had to go to court and fight to get it returned even though the charges were dropped and it should have just been given back.


Edited by Flynn, 15 April 2020 - 04:25 AM.

Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#398 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,468 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 15 April 2020 - 05:04 AM

This is what happens when the letter of the law is stretched beyond reasonable and intent is removed from consideration. ^ this ***

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#399 mab22

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,652 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 18

Posted 15 April 2020 - 08:41 AM

 

I curious about how the IL SC would rule on this situation.  A mother has a FOID card and owns several firearms.  Her son gets released from prison and is now a prohibited person.  Mom leaves the house to get groceries and leaves the guns at home.  The son is at the home.  Is the son now constructively in possession of a firearm as a prohibited person and he is now committing a crime while he sits at home watching a football game?

 

I think this situation is where the constitutionality of the FOID card becomes really murky.

 

I'm not an attorney, but I envision this situation exists in many homes right now.

 

I actually have experience with this, they will likely charge the prohibited person with constructive possession if the firearm is in the same building and not locked away where said prohibited person couldn't readilly readily gain access.  Same with any bullets at the location.  In my case the individual was not only charged with constructive possession of my firearm they were also charged with of constructive possession for each and every bullet in the magazine and in the box of ammo in the drawer.  And of course my lawfully owned firearm was confiscated.  In the end all the constructive possession charges ended up getting dropped in a plea and my firearm was eventually returned but I had to go to court and fight to get it returned even though the charges were dropped and it should have just been given back.

 

We were taught that in the CCL course. That's why I had my wife get a FOID, just in case any ammunition falls out of a range bag, or I pick some ammo up and forget I left it in the trunk when I got home and she had to borrow the car for what ever reason.


Void the FOID!

#400 mab22

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,652 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 18

Posted 15 April 2020 - 08:50 AM

So if she is simply found not guilty, can she have her firearm back without a FOID and will they have to give it back to her without her applying for or possessing a FOID card?

 

I am guessing that the case just does not simply end in a not guilty...

 


Void the FOID!

#401 davel501

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 18

Posted 15 April 2020 - 10:28 AM

So if she is simply found not guilty, can she have her firearm back without a FOID and will they have to give it back to her without her applying for or possessing a FOID card?

 

I am guessing that the case just does not simply end in a not guilty...

 

 

Yep. Separate trips to court and legal fees to get the firearm back. Sounds like having a nice firearm could make it worse as I've heard a few stories of confiscated guns having to be retrieved from the chief's house. 



#402 Tip

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 916 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 14

Posted 15 April 2020 - 12:32 PM


So if she is simply found not guilty, can she have her firearm back without a FOID and will they have to give it back to her without her applying for or possessing a FOID card?
 
I am guessing that the case just does not simply end in a not guilty...
 


 
Yep. Separate trips to court and legal fees to get the firearm back. Sounds like having a nice firearm could make it worse as I've heard a few stories of confiscated guns having to be retrieved from the chief's house. 


Nope, simple, she can pick up the firearm at her convenience. All she has to do is show a valid FOID because, you know, an Illinois citizen transporting a firearm in Illinois without a FOID is illegal.

No, we cannot release the firearm to anyone else, sorry.

No, she doesnât need one to possess the firearm in her house.

Catch 22 but hey, thatâs another issue for another court case....

Edited by Tip, 15 April 2020 - 12:35 PM.

Never Engage in a Battle of Wits with an unarmed person.

#403 Chief Illiniwek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 830 posts
  • Joined: 22-March 13

Posted 17 April 2020 - 03:26 PM

 

So if she is simply found not guilty, can she have her firearm back without a FOID and will they have to give it back to her without her applying for or possessing a FOID card?
 
I am guessing that the case just does not simply end in a not guilty...
 


 
Yep. Separate trips to court and legal fees to get the firearm back. Sounds like having a nice firearm could make it worse as I've heard a few stories of confiscated guns having to be retrieved from the chief's house. 


Nope, simple, she can pick up the firearm at her convenience. All she has to do is show a valid FOID because, you know, an Illinois citizen transporting a firearm in Illinois without a FOID is illegal.

No, we cannot release the firearm to anyone else, sorry.

No, she doesnât need one to possess the firearm in her house.

Catch 22 but hey, thatâs another issue for another court case....

 

 

What if someone with a FOID is with her when she goes to retrieve it?  The rifle would be released to her.  Couldn't the FOID holder then transport her and the rifle to her residence?  


Liberals:  If the shoe doesn't fit, make everyone wear it.  -  Ann Coulter

 

IllinoisCarry Supporting Member

NRA Life Member

ISRA Member


#404 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 17,513 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 22 June 2020 - 09:13 AM

This case was remanded back to the 2nd Judicial District Court in White County.  The new Motion to Find Statute Unconstitutional has been filed by the attorney for the defendant:

 

Attached File  Motion to Find Statute Unconstitutional 2.pdf   94.79KB   227 downloads

 

 

 


The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides as follows:

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 

 

            The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and is fully applicable against the States.  McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 712, 749 (2010).

            McDonald, quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), stated as follows:

Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right… (stating that the ‘inherent right of self-defense of self, family, and property is most acute’ in the home…).  McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. at 767.

 

            A person cannot be compelled to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, a privilege freely granted by the constitution.  Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 114 (1943); City of Blue Island v. Kozul, 379 Ill. 511, 41 N.E.2d 515, 519 (1942). Thus, a person exercising their right to keep and bear arms in their own home for self-defense should not be made to pur-chase a card or obtain a license to exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

            A government entity may enact regulations in the interest of public safety, health, welfare or convenience, within the limits permitted by law, but in every case this power to regulate must be so exercised as not, in attaining a permissible end, unduly to infringe the freedom protected by the Constitution.  City of Blue Island at 520.                

            The FOID card Act requires individuals to pay a fee and obtain a license to enjoy a right that is protected by the Constitution, even in the individual’s own home.  Even if the fee is nominal (i.e., $10.00) the entire process suppresses a fundamental right that is recognized to be enjoyed in the most private of areas, such as the home.  No other fundamental right as guaran-teed by the Bill of Rights requires a fee and/or a license to exercise.

Moreover, it is important to keep in mind that in the instant case the Illinois law in ques-tion is not about registering guns but, instead, about registering people.  Likewise, the instant case is about a long gun kept in the home for self-defense – not a handgun. 

            It is axiomatic that in American and English jurisprudence the home is a special place – a place where one can retreat from the world (one’s castle) and a place that is accorded special consideration in our laws.  For instance, Illinois has a statute regarding using force in defense of a dwelling (720 ILCS 5/7-2) and stating that the force used can be deadly if:

(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumul-tuous manner and that the person reasonably believes that such for-ce is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal vio-lence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or (2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

 

No other Illinois statute gives a person such rights when another structure is concerned. Further, other Illinois statutes give special protection to the home.  For example, Home Invasion is a class X felony (720 ILCS 5/19-6) and Criminal Trespass to a Residence is a class 4 felony when the person entering knows or has reason to know that someone is inside the residence(720 ILCS 5/19-4[b](2)).    .   

Having the right to defend your home, even by using deadly force, is virtually a useless right if you can’t have a gun in the home (e.g., if someone breaks into your house armed with a gun and all you have is a knife or ball bat, what chance do you have to successfully defend yourself or your family?).

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), invalidated a law banning contraception, finding a right to marital privacy – a right to protection from government intrusion and estab-lishing the right of privacy with respect to intimate practices.  Griswold also discussed zones of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees, specifically the first, third, fourth, fifth and ninth Amendments (Griswold at p. 485), stating that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance” (Griswold at p. 484).  Although Griswold did not mention the Second Amendment, there is no reason why that Amendment should not be included, for if there is any place that a zone of privacy should apply it would be to the home.

Griswold found the government’s intrusion into the marital relationship as repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship, stating (Griswold at p. 485):

Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.

 

Illinois has a Bill of Rights in its Constitution (Article 1), and among those rights is a right of privacy – a right to be protected from invasions of privacy (Section 6).  This right is included in the same paragraph that states “The people have the right to be secure in their… houses… against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

There cannot be any more basic right than the right to prevent violence in your own home – to be safe in your own home and defend its sanctity.  The government should not be able to control a citizen’s right to defend himself in his own home and should not require a citizen to pay a fee and obtain a card to exercise that right, especially as in the instant case, where the person is not otherwise disqualified from possessing a gun.

Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary about regulating guns, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is crystal clear and protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.  Further, it is fully applicable against the States.  McDonald at p. 749.

 

CONCLUSION

 

 

            Vivian Claudine Brown, the defendant in the above-entitled cause, by her attorney, Alan C. Downen, requests this court, for the foregoing reasons, to find The Firearm Owners Identifi-cation Card Act (430 ILCS 65/0.01 et seq.) unconstitutional as applied to the defendant for the reasons set forth above.

 


"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

#405 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,157 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 22 June 2020 - 10:30 AM

Great, but why only applied to the defendant. SMH

NRA Patriot Life Member - Endowment
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Retired Professional Firefighter / Paramedic


#406 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 17,513 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 22 June 2020 - 11:34 AM

Great, but why only applied to the defendant. SMH


Because this is a criminal case not a lawsuit.
"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

#407 bmyers

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,482 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 22 June 2020 - 12:32 PM

Will this case be used as grounds for a lawsuit to free everyone in the State?


Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA

ISRA Member


#408 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 17,513 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 22 June 2020 - 01:13 PM

It is possible. There is already a lawsuit out there.
"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

#409 speedbump

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,264 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 13

Posted 06 April 2021 - 03:46 PM

If y'all haven't read the amicus brief by Zanotti, Umholtz, et al, you should. Is a powerful presentation.
"The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."

~Frederick Douglass~

#410 stockboyy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 219 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 14

Posted 07 April 2021 - 09:47 AM

At some point the FOID-ACT must be judged for what it really is.

A Total / Blanket Ban.

  Making contraband of all firearms and ammo in the

  Illinois Jurisdiction.



#411 EdDinIL

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 455 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 14

Posted 09 April 2021 - 01:29 PM

ILSC opinion:  http://www.illinoisc...2020/124100.pdf

 

 

Defendant, Vivian Brown, was charged by information with possessing a firearm without a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card in violation of section 2(a)(1) of the Illinois Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (FOID Card Act) (430 ILCS 65/2(a)(1) (West 2016)). The circuit court of White County dismissed the charge, finding that, as applied to the facts of this case, section 2(a)(1) was unconstitutional under the second amendment to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. II) and article I, section 22, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 22). Direct appeal was taken to this court. Ill. S. Ct. R. 603 (eff. Feb. 6, 2013). For the reasons that follow, we determine that the circuit court unnecessarily reached defendant’s constitutional challenge. We therefore remand this cause with directions.


Life Member: NRA, ISRA, SAF

 


#412 cope

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 550 posts
  • Joined: 20-October 14

Posted 09 April 2021 - 02:35 PM

So as I understand after reading that back and forth mess..... and correct me as Im sure Im misinterpreting............

 

They are saying the circuit cannot rule on the constitutionality because they also ruled an alternative which is that FOID does not apply inside the home

 

This has been remanded for re-entry by the circuit who has been directed to rule that FOID does not apply inside the home and dismiss the case

 

Which leaves IL off the hook because they will not appeal that decision, therefore there is no precedence

 

So other than this defendant getting off the hook nothing changes at all



#413 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,898 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 09 April 2021 - 05:43 PM

So other than this defendant getting off the hook nothing changes at all

 

If they rule FOID doesn't imply inside the home, a lot changes actually and also keeps open a door for a future constitutional challenge as to why your right disappears when you exit your house.

 

The FOID no applicable inside the house is a huge change in itself, and could really open up a big can of worms when search warrants are executed where the person isn't a prohibited person and firearms are found for example.

 

We really need to see the scope of the to come final ruling, before we jump to any real conclusions.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#414 mab22

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,652 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 18

Posted 09 April 2021 - 06:10 PM

 

Great, but why only applied to the defendant. SMH


Because this is a criminal case not a lawsuit.

 

What happened to equal protection under the law?
 


Void the FOID!

#415 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 17,513 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 26 April 2021 - 11:53 AM

The (new) circuit court Judge in Vivian Brown’s case has re-issued an Order declaring the FOID Card Act unconstitutional and dismissing the charges against Ms. Brown. This will hopefully give a direct path back to the Illinois Supreme Court.''

 

 

 

 

Attached File  Order of 042621 (On Defendant's Motion to Find Statute Unconstitutional).pdf   624.86KB   209 downloads


"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

#416 bmyers

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,482 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 26 April 2021 - 11:59 AM

That sounds/looks promising for the good guys. 


Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA

ISRA Member


#417 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 26 April 2021 - 01:07 PM

The (new) circuit court Judge in Vivian Brown’s case has re-issued an Order declaring the FOID Card Act unconstitutional and dismissing the charges against Ms. Brown. This will hopefully give a direct path back to the Illinois Supreme Court.


Except the IL Supreme Court already said the circuit court didn't have a basis to rule on the FOID's constitutionality. It's still the same case, so I would expect the appeals court to send it back as "not following instructions."
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.


#418 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,898 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 26 April 2021 - 01:26 PM

It's a decent ruling and I like much of it as it appears to crack open more challeges beyond the scope of the ruling, but I'm disappointed that the judge chose to apply intermediate scrutiny 'approaching' strict scrutiny especially to an individual civil right exercised wihin the home!


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#419 Tip

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 916 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 14

Posted 26 April 2021 - 05:18 PM

How does this ruling differ from the previous one that was booted back to them??
Never Engage in a Battle of Wits with an unarmed person.

#420 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,581 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 26 April 2021 - 05:28 PM

How does this ruling differ from the previous one that was booted back to them??


It doesn't.
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.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users