Teen suing over FOID Card denial seeks summary judgment.

[MLeake]

Levant, if you wish to quote me, you should note that I am arguing in favor of the plaintiff, and against Wreck-N-Crew. The bit you quoted was a defense of the plaintiff's claim that the court should effectively provide a summary judgement based on the law violating her Constitutional rights.

[Levant]

Then we're violently agreeing. Glad to know it. I misunderstood. Please accept my apology.

[Mike38]

I’ve caught some grief for this, right here on this forum, but I think the Illinois FOID can be a good thing in certain instances. Private sales of firearms being one. Let’s say you are selling a gun. As a responsible person / responsible gun owner, you want some kind of reasonable assurance that the gun you are selling is not falling into the hands of a person with questionable motives. If the buyer has a FOID, you can be some what assured that he is not a felon or has not been convicted of domestic abuse. This doesn’t mean it’s 100% assured but it does mean reasonably assured. Without a FOID, you have no idea. It is in a sense a “cover your butt” thing.

I could care less if some pimple faced kid at WalMart wants to see my FOID before I buy a box of bulk pack .22’s or WWB 9mm. But I do care a bunch if some convicted felon gang banger wants to buy a box of WWB 9mm. Can the gang banger still get the ammo? Sure, he most certainly can. But if it’s just a little bit harder for him to buy ammo, it may mean one less murder or one less robbery. So I can live with a little inconvenience on my part if one less felony takes place.

Let the flames begin…..

[Wreck-n-Crew]

The following were posts made by someone who used my computer and are not mine. I have taken steps to insure it doesn't happen again and apologize for allowing my security to lack. I also disagree with these post. Once again sorry TFL. I did notify a staff member and since the post's were not refractions I am deleting or editing them.

The entire point of a judicial challenge to a law is both to get an unjust law overturned so the legislature can create a just one in it's place if the law served a just purpose, AND to provide The People with one avenue to their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of their grievances.

I would not disagree with it being her right, just with the path chosen. I don't like the process for the simple fact that the process is flawed and has opened the door for many who have used it similarly to legislate from the bench.

When Law becomes subject to it's intention, it ends up being the same as interpretation from a judicial standpoint, at which point the law could lose it's power. Reason for the "rains on the just as well as the unjust" point.

Though I understand that the law is like a fishing net made for netting shrimp and some fish get caught in it. However the majority of the fish are not harmed and returned. Some however are and when that happens we look to find a solution.

In order for that "net" (LAW) to be better, it must be redesigned, tested, adjusted and tested again. That is the time consuming but proving way.

Having law temporarily changed until a new one can be perfected is for severe cases. I don't see this case as something in dire and immediate need.


Quote:
Are you suggesting a curfew from 1201 PM to 11:59 AM is unjust, but people should not challenge it in the courts, but instead work to change it in their 2 minutes of freedom every day?

I think that is stretched metaphorically. The the idea that the law in this case is that constricting is a little much therefor my answer is yes. If you want something changed, do the work to get it changed.

Tempest Horsley has claimed that the response defense of the State, led by Madigan's office basically says that her right to abortion(if she was just a year younger 17, she wouldn't need parental consent) is more important than her 2A Rights to self defense.

These are two separate issues and the statement about abortion has no bearing on law, so the abortion statement is irrelevant.

I think the issue then remains her FOID and the Law is the Law. I stand with the law because bending the rules for one person can have more negative consequences than positive. "It rains on the just as well as the unjust".

Do I think the Law should change? Yes but conditionally.

Also I think she went about things the wrong way. She should be fighting to have it changed and accepting why it's in place to begin with.

Quote:
Put another way, Wreck-n-Crew, why do you think FOID should be tweaked instead of tossed?

Yes I think it needs some fixing and if tweaking gets it there all the better.

My biggest concern is route to fixing it. As much as most people (myself included) would like to see things done more easily, history says the easy path can be a minefield.

The thing complicating our world the most is not simplicity , but the lengths as to which one must go to close loopholes in what should be simple laws that need no interpretation.

Hope I got them all, sorry again all...

[Levant]

I’ve caught some grief for this, right here on this forum,

I can see how you've caught grief here for that. You're going to get some more.

Grief:
An FOID tells you nothing about motive; it only tells you about arrest record up to the time of issuance. Every single repeat gun-crime-felon in Illinois, at one time in their life, had their first felony. Prior to that, they could get an FOID. Besides, those with bad motives that would qualify for an FOID don't go to gun stores and most FOID-based purchases would always be for gun stores.

Since nothing known to man could ever peer into the mind of a gun buyer to get their motives, we can only base decisions on physical evidence. The physical evidence that tells me they're eligible to buy a gun is that they're not in prison or jail. Now, if I know that they had been, I'd be happy to refuse to sell to them but the problem there is not whether I can tell they're dangerous or not, the problem there is that the state let dangerous criminals out of prison to prey on society.

And if a dangerous person has been released on society and I refuse to sell them a gun they can either take the gun from me forcibly or get one somewhere else. In any case, a person who wants to do bad stuff doesn't care about laws requiring FOIDs to get a gun.

But if it’s just a little bit harder for him to buy ammo, it may mean one less murder or one less robbery. So I can live with a little inconvenience on my part if one less felony takes place.

Well, if murderers spend all of their time murdering then any time we can distract them for a moment does actually prevent a murder. But, assuming murderers spend time doing other things and only murder for a couple of seconds at a time, no inconvenience will even slow them down.

You don't live with a little inconvenience; what you live with is the means by which the state of Government can identify gun owners at worst. At best what you have is simply a completely ineffective and costly government program that does nothing to reduce or prevent crime and distracts those accountable from doing what they really need to do.

Gun laws don't work. Look how well FOID cards are working in Chicago:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3558463.html

So there are a couple of arguments that I hope you can see for why you're wrong.

[MLeake]

Mike38,

You could simply do transfers via an FFL; or, you could sell to concealed carry licensees - once you finally get some in Illinois.

Requiring a license to simply own should not be constitutional, and it annoys me SCOTUS has not stricken such laws from IL, NY, MA, et al.

[Levant]

Requiring a license to simply own should not be is not constitutional, and it annoys me SCOTUS has not stricken such laws from IL, NY, MA, et al.

My take on your post.

[hermannr]

Mike38: So you believe, unless they prove otherwise, all people a liers and criminals?

Last I looked the laws in our country work on the assumption of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. NOT...guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

Did you work for the IRS back a few years ago? You do know that their policy that YOU prove your income and expenses was thrown out in court?

[MLeake]

hermannr, your conceit appears to be that individual-individual interaction should work under the same constraints as government-individual interactions.

Personally, I use angieslist, consumer reports, and similar before buying major products or hiring contractors.

I also would do serious screening before letting somebody watch my child.

You can assume people are honest, etc, all you like - but I do not.

Government and the courts should assume innocence until guilt is proven, but that is as far as I will agree with you.

[ThesNazud]

I doubt that. They want the government doing the background check, not the dealer. For most anti's the government should have the guns, not the people, remember. They trust the government of the people, for the people, by the people, more than they trust the people remember. And that means they want the government in control, not the dealer.

Actually the govt would still be in charge of the background checks like they are, I'm saying it's real easy to check an ID to see if someone is 21+ or not...

[Mike38]

Hermannr wrote:
So you believe, unless they prove otherwise, all people a liers and criminals?

Yep pretty much. I trust no one until they prove to me they are truth worthy. You have to earn my trust and earn my respect. Trust and respect is not something I toss around freely.

A FOID is reasonable assurance that a person is not a convicted felon. It’s not 100% assurance, but your odds as a seller are a touch better.

Sure, you have no idea what the motive of a person buying is. They could load the gun and kill you within seconds of you handing over the gun. But odds are in my favor just a tiny bit more if they have a FOID.

Argue all you want, but I’m correct. Conventional wisdom is on my side.

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by Mike38

Argue all you want, but I’m correct. Conventional wisdom is on my side.

Pretty arrogant, yes?

BTAIM, can we get back to the case at hand? The question is whether or not an FOID should be issued to adults aged 18-20, without a parent or guardians compliance.

I see much more of this and I'll start deleting all the off-topic posts.

[sigcurious]

I'd imagine one additional argument against the 18-20 group requiring consent is: What about those who were formerly or are wards of the state, foster kids etc? The state would effectively have to consent to itself. I'd have to wonder if they even have a process for that.

[hermannr]

There are no controls when you are 18...you are a legal adult, and can contract for yourself, you do not need anyone's approval.

[Al Norris]

Sigcurious, according to the pleadings, this question was brought up. There was no means for a person who "aged out" of the system to receive any permission whatsoever.

Hermannr, the State of IL agrees with you, except in the case of an FOID... Then you need parental permission.

[sigcurious]

Interesting, seems like it's ripe for a full blown challenge(as I would assume that there is also no remedy for an 18-20 who has no parents or guardian but was not a ward of the state). It's unfortunate that the possible plaintiff population is so small and by the time anything got off the ground they'd likely have gotten remedy by default by being 21.

Which then leads to the question, is there a way to file suit without a plaintiff involved who is directly affected?

[JimDandy]

by the time anything got off the ground they'd likely have gotten remedy by default by being 21.

There have been cases where someone was allowed to continue their suit after getting/not getting remedy because actual resolution in the time frame provided by the court system was unlikely. I think the Roe v Wade set of cases was one of them in fact.

Sigcurious, according to the pleadings, this question was brought up. There was no means for a person who "aged out" of the system to receive any permission whatsoever.

Further, exactly how would the State be able to provide or more importantly deny that permission under constitutional grounds? If said party has a right to bear arms, and the state cannot infringe that right without due process on specific criteria, they cannot backdoor a denial on other criteria for aged out wards of the state constitutionally, that would I assume as a layman, open up acres of 14A violations.

[MLeake]

Quite frankly, I would like to see "status offenses" stricken in general.

To my mind, if one is a legal adult, can enter into contracts, and is fully liable for all one's actions, then one should be able to own any legal firearm; grab a beer at a party, bar, or store; apply for federal aid based on individual status and not on parental income...

Laws that create subclasses are deplorable.

If society truly believes that 18-20 should be treated like children, then we should change the laws to treat them as minors in all respects. No draft and no draft registration; parental consent (and liability) for all contracts; the works.

Otherwise, we are charging people as adults for committing the crime of not being old enough...

Note: I am 45, well in the safe zone for all age related shenanigans (no worries about being too young, nor any worries about extra testing for being old).

[johnwilliamson062]

Add exception to paying taxes for anyone who doesn't meet that requirement for adulthood to what MLEAKE said.

[JimDandy]

Did they work? Do those hours count for their OASDI totals? Is their opportunity to work protected by, indirectly provided by, and enforced by the Federal government?

That 16 year old working for Hot Dog On A Stick at the mall has the same minimum wage, discrimination in the workplace, and other assorted employment laws protecting them. And that enforcement has to be paid for.

[MLeake]

JimDandy, I believe it was Thoreau who refused to pay taxes to Massachusetts, because he felt laws were unjust. For this, most in academia considered him a hero.

Why do you think citizens who are not granted equal protections should pay the same (or any) taxes?

Edit: Labor laws are only one piece of the puzzle; you seem to suggest they are all that matter.

[NJgunowner]

To license a right is to take away that right and turn it into a privilege. The supreme court really need to rule that requiring a license is a violation of our rights, PERIOD.

[JimDandy]

Why do you think citizens who are not granted equal protections should pay the same (or any) taxes?

Edit: Labor laws are only one piece of the puzzle; you seem to suggest they are all that matter.

The "indirectly" portion was an apparently too subtle reference towards the funding of the Armed Forces, among other things.

What equal protections are an infant/minor/child (pick your legal term) denied?

To license a right is to take away that right and turn it into a privilege. The supreme court really need to rule that requiring a license is a violation of our rights, PERIOD.

If the FOID is "Shall Issue" then it does not strike me as a "license" as such. It MAY well be an improper an unbearable burden to the right. But I see it as more of an extension to the background check than an actual license.

[MLeake]

JimDandy, in the example under discussion in this thread, the right to keep and bear arms would be directly on point.

[44 AMP]

As I see it, the base issue is that the state is not being consistent in the application of its own laws. Not if a FOID card is a legitimate restriction, but that it is being denied to an 18yr old, unfairly.

References to abortion, or anything else where an 18 yr old (or less) are not required to obtain parental permission are not the issue, but are examples of where the state is being inconsistent in application of its laws.

I'm no legal beagle, but isn't asking for a summary judgment the basic "I believe I'm right, its obvious.." and asking the judge to agree, or not?

And, if the judge rules against, can suit still be brought? And, if suit can be brought, if she turns 21 before it is resolved (that part of the law no longer applies to her) will it get tossed?