Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
431 replies to this topic

#421 Chitownshooterz

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Joined: 09-April 13

Posted 28 April 2021 - 07:52 PM

https://bearingarms....-at-home-n44329

#422 solareclipse2

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,278 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 13

Posted 29 April 2021 - 12:14 PM

So how does this benefit us or what does this get us?


I WILL LOSE EVERY ARGUMENT FROM NOW ON, I WILL WALK AWAY FROM EVERY FIGHT OR CONFRONTATION, I WILL TAKE THE HIGH ROAD.

#423 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,375 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 29 April 2021 - 01:05 PM

I guess the moral of this story is, if Illinois passes laws that breach our Constitutional Rights, it's up to every single citizen to individually challenge the bad law to get their rights restored.  I don't get most of this legal mumbo jumbo, but it seems outrageous that if a law is found unconstitutional, that it's not TOTALLY and IMMEDIATELY stricken.  This nonsense that a unconstitutional law can only adversely effect ONE person and Only this ONE person is allowed a remedy, sounds utterly retarded. 



#424 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,592 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 29 April 2021 - 01:52 PM

In today's weekly ISRA bulletin:

...
This case will be back before the Illinois Supreme Court. The Illinois State Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation will be there once again. It is pretty clear what will happen to the FOID card if we win. If we lose, we will be on the way to the United States Supreme Court.
...


What Richard Pearson failed to mention is that the appeal of the first decision was brought by the State of Illinois attempting to overturn the verdict. The winner (which was Brown) doesn't get to appeal the decision. There'd be no point. Unless Kwame Raoul appeals again, this case dies here. Has Raoul appealed?
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.


#425 mab22

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,663 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 18

Posted 30 April 2021 - 11:21 PM

Ok, so from a legal perspective everyone who wants to ditch their FOID would have to challenge the state in court, they would have to apply or state the judges logic / ruling from this case.

 

So, how do you do it as a class action and skip 20k+ individual filings, and how do we get started? 

 

All in say “arghh” like a pirate  :lol: 
 


Void the FOID!

#426 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,592 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 01 May 2021 - 05:15 PM

... 
So, how do you do it as a class action and skip 20k+ individual filings, and how do we get started? 
...


You're describing a "facial challenge," i.e., a law is unconstitutional as written. The problem is that the FOID has been around and withstood some legal challenges for a while, so it's been presumed constitutional for a while.

There are two distinct uses for a FOID: license to own and license to acquire. Arguably the Brown verdict only declares the license to own to be unconstitutional, which I believe was not originally part of the FOID Act. I'm not sure if the constitutionality of license to own for a FOID has ever been challenged in court by itself. I suspect a license to own in NY has been and survived. Maybe we could hope for a circuit split.

IANAL
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.


#427 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 23,469 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 02 May 2021 - 08:40 AM

According to a Suntimes article from earlier this morning, the appeal was filed Thursday of last week:

 

... now the state’s top court is being asked to decide whether the Firearm Owner’s Identification cards — popularly called FOID cards — are a necessary safeguard or a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Last week, a downstate judge ruled the FOID card system was unconstitutional, reducing residents’ Second Amendment rights to bear arms to a “façade.”

Gun control advocates denounced the ruling as “frightening and radical,” and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul quickly appealed the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court.

The appeal filed last Thursday sets up a battle over whether the state can require its citizens to hold such an ID card in order to own a firearm.
...
(Giffords attorney Jonathan) Baum said he is “confident” the state Supreme Court will take up the case in the summer and reverse Webb’s ruling.
...



#428 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,498 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 02 May 2021 - 11:42 AM

...Gun control advocates denounced the ruling as “frightening and radical,” and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul quickly appealed the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court...


And yet there are what, just 4 other states, that have something similar?
NRA Life Member; ISRA Member
SAF Member; GOA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸

#429 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,592 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 02 May 2021 - 03:19 PM

According to a Suntimes article from earlier this morning, the appeal was filed Thursday of last week:

...
The appeal filed last Thursday sets up a battle over whether the state can require its citizens to hold such an ID card in order to own a firearm.
...
(Giffords attorney Jonathan) Baum said he is “confident” the state Supreme Court will take up the case in the summer and reverse Webb’s ruling.
...


Since the IL AG (Raoul) asked the IL Supreme Court to take up the motion (not the whole case), it's a pretty safe bet that the court will take it up. If the IL AG (whoever he is at any time) asked the court to consider the legality of ham sandwiches, it would consider the legality of ham sandwiches (although it would probably continue to allow ham sandwiches).

The Sun-Times article gets it right saying the ruling "sets up a battle over whether the state can require" FOIDs. The ruling was only "as applied" to the circumstances of the motion (a firearm in the home of Vivian Brown). It's an invitation to a battle. Raoul didn't have to RSVP saying he'd attend.

FYI, the ruling itself starts its logic with the $10 fee and builds from there. It would be interesting if the IL Supreme Court rules that the FOID is constitutional, but that the fee is not.
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.


#430 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,949 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 02 May 2021 - 04:30 PM

FYI, the ruling itself starts its logic with the $10 fee and builds from there. It would be interesting if the IL Supreme Court rules that the FOID is constitutional, but that the fee is not.

LOL, it would be interesting to see how long the FOID lasted if it was no longer a honey pot of money for the state!


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

#431 JTHunter

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,406 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 13

Posted 02 May 2021 - 09:31 PM

This point may have been made elsewhere (didn't see it here) comparing the "tax" (fee) for the FOID to the old "poll tax" that was declared unconstitutional decades ago and I'm thinking that, even if not the same despicable situation, they are close enough to warrant action by the courts.  Having to pay a "fee" or "tax" for an enumerated Constitutional right is unConstitutional and illegal.


“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” - - Abraham Lincoln

“Small minds adhere to the letter of the law; great minds dispense Justice.” - - S. C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Life member NAHC, Endowment member NRA

#432 MRE

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

Posted 03 May 2021 - 08:45 AM

This point may have been made elsewhere (didn't see it here) comparing the "tax" (fee) for the FOID to the old "poll tax" that was declared unconstitutional decades ago and I'm thinking that, even if not the same despicable situation, they are close enough to warrant action by the courts.  Having to pay a "fee" or "tax" for an enumerated Constitutional right is unConstitutional and illegal.


One thing to keep in mind, in terms of case law historically when it comes to licenses/permits for the exercise of certain rights: there is a difference between what is considered a “tax” and a “fee”. Fees have been largely upheld, as long as they are not so excessive that they are effectively prohibitive or implemented in a way that is discriminatory, and if they are used for purposes related to the implementation and enforcement of the license. Where they have been held unconstitutional is when they are used for general revenue for other purposes, or treated as a “tax”.

In terms of the FOID, it’s pretty easy for the State to make the case that it is used for implementation and enforcement purposes, when law enforcement is the agency that the money goes to (whether it is ISP or DNR). Even when the funds were swept, my guess is that argument can still be made, albeit a little looser, when there general revenue funds still go to fund officers on the roads (ie enforcement).




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users