|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 29, 2021, 02:24 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,955
|
IL, Foid Cards Ruled Unconstitutional
People v. Brown, 2020 IL 124100
https://courts.illinois.gov/Opinions...020/124100.pdf In the decision it says this, On February 14, 2018, the court entered a written order granting defendant’s motion and finding section 2(a)(1) unconstitutional “as applied to the defendant,” under both the Illinois and United States Constitutions. Stating that the facts of the case were “undisputed,” the circuit court held that requiring defendant to “fill out a form, provide a picture ID and pay a $10 fee to obtain a FOID card before she can exercise her constitutional right to self-defense with a firearm” in her home violated the second amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the states through the fourteenth amendment (U.S. Const., amends. II, XIV), as well as article I, section 22, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 22). The court further stated that its finding of unconstitutionality had been entered in conformity with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 18 (eff. “As applied to the defendant”, mean what exactly? |
April 29, 2021, 06:51 AM | #2 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
The linked decisions dates from April, 2020. It also sends the case back to the Circuit Court for entry of a ruling excluding the finding of unconstitutionality.
Quote:
An as-applied challenge is a claim that the law is unconstitutional as it was applied with respect to the particular plaintiff (or defendant in a criminal case), but allows for the possibility that it may be constitutional under other circumstances. For example, Arkansas has a statute that says a misdemeanor case may be tried against a defendant in absentia. (Let's not argue about the propriety of that statute, please. All I'm saying is that we have it.) Let's say that John Doe is in the military and gets arrested for Domestic Battery, 3rd Degree (a misdemeanor). Before his case gets to trial, he gets deployed. While he's gone, the prosecutor proceeds against him in absentia and convicts him of DB3. No more 2A for him, right? He could challenge 18 USC 922, and claim that it is unconstitutional to strip him of his 2A right, where he was convicted of the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in his absence. So it's a claim that 18 USC 922 is unconstitutional as applied to him Does that help?
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
April 29, 2021, 06:53 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
|
Basically the judge threw out the FOID card as unconstitutional and a violation of the 2nd Amendment. The state can now appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.
https://thelibertyloft.com/major-sec...court-be-next/ |
April 29, 2021, 06:56 AM | #4 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Thanks, mack59. From your post, I was able to pull a link to the more recent ruling: https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploa...titutional.pdf
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
April 29, 2021, 12:59 PM | #5 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,853
|
So, am I getting this right??
Judge in original case ruled the FOID unconstitutional, it then went to a higher court who ordered the original ruling removed (vacated?) modified to remove the language about the FOID being unconstitutional, then had the ruling reissued.. ??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
April 29, 2021, 02:18 PM | #6 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,473
|
I'm confused.
(I know ... nothing new about that.)
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
April 29, 2021, 04:41 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,462
|
Quote:
In response, it looks as if the circuit court took pains explaining exactly how the FOID law prohibits people who aren't under any legal disability from possessing arms in their homes, and that the law isn't salvageable by any non-creative reading of its text. The state argued that the FOID law doesn't prohibit everyone from possessing a firearm so long as they comply with the FOID requirements. The lower court found that no more persuasive than it should have. If anyone has followed this or takes the time to really read the docs, I urge them to correct any errors in my summary.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
April 29, 2021, 05:30 PM | #8 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,473
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
April 29, 2021, 08:46 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 21, 2018
Location: AZ
Posts: 236
|
So, for an IL resident, is a FOID card required or not?
|
April 29, 2021, 09:15 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,657
|
^required. This is in IL state court, they aren’t going to find the FOID card unconstitutional.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018 https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946 |
April 30, 2021, 12:10 AM | #11 | |||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,473
|
Quote:
Quote:
From the conclusion: Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|||
April 30, 2021, 04:29 PM | #12 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,853
|
ok, so a higher court says they have to rewrite the decision leaving out stuff about "unsonstitutional", so does that alter the verdict??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
April 30, 2021, 07:52 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,462
|
Quote:
Lower Court - 2A1 of the FOID Act is unconstitutional as written and applied to the defendant, and there is no way I can interpret it in a way that saves it. Supreme Court - You were not supposed to find a law unconstitutional if you could have ruled without getting to that issue, but since you broke that rule we now don't have jurisdiction to hear the appeal, but we are directing you to do over the part about 2A1 being unconstitutional. Lower Court - Good catch, Sirs. 2A1 and 65/5 are both unconstitutional.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
April 30, 2021, 07:59 PM | #14 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,473
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
||
April 30, 2021, 08:02 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
|
April 30, 2021, 09:04 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,462
|
Quote:
A terrible example follows. Let's say your state has a law against printing and distributing copies of the Constitution. If a PO pulls you over and tickets you for violating that law because you dated his sister, and he testifies that you didn't actually have any copies you were transporting, but you are the kind of fellow who could use a lesson in how to treat women, then the court doesn't need to get to the unconstitutional quality of of your state's odd law. The court can dismiss the state's case on the basis that there was no evidence to support it, so it doesn't need to take an unnecessary side trip into examination of the legislature's work. The rule is supposed to keep judges deciding disputes between parties rather than looking for legislation they don't like.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
May 3, 2021, 08:10 PM | #17 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,657
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018 https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946 Last edited by 5whiskey; May 3, 2021 at 08:19 PM. |
||
May 3, 2021, 08:58 PM | #18 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,473
|
Quote:
Will the ruling be appealed (again)? Almost certainly. If/when that happens, the Illinois Supreme Court will have to review the lower court's decision on its merits and decide whether or not his ruling makes sense. Until that happens, the woman who is the central party to the case does not need an FOID to keep an operational firearm in her home. On the other hand, the ruling is narrow enough that the government may decide not to appeal, because there's still a possibility that they might lose. The consequences of that might outweigh the effect of letting this woman have her gun. Remember when the guy was arrested for trying to fly with a gun out of Newark Airport? His name was Greg Revell. He was arrested but, ultimately, charges were dropped and he never went to trial. Why not? The prosecutor has never said why (to my knowledge) but more than likely he declined to prosecute because when he looked at the cards he was holding it didn't look like a great hand. So, rather than try the case and lose, he folded.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
May 3, 2021, 09:29 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,657
|
Quote:
And as of the writing of the IL Supreme Court ruling in that link, the lady still technically isn’t off the hook. It’s very clear that she will be off the hook if she appeals based on other technical grounds outlined by the IL Supreme Court. I have not looked for an update on that case, but I would expect the attorney general to strongly favor dismissing it at this point of IL Supreme Court outlines how the law should be challenged. The more I read it, the more I believe this is absolute absurdity. The Supreme Court of IL is so beholden to protect the “constitutionality” of FOID that they order lower courts to exclude “unconstitutional” language (even as applied, which would not kill the FOID statute as a whole) from their ruling and instead apply another technical aspect of why this lady’s charge should be vacated. EDIT: AB I’m sorry I hadn’t read the other links, you are correct and I am wrong but I leave my original post. However, I fail to see how the circuit court’s ruling in this case really means anything. The state Supreme Court already ordered the circuit court to exclude unconstitutionality from its ruling. The most recent link is just the circuit court most recent ruling that refuses to be held to the remand from the state Supreme Court. Good on the judge for sticking to his guns, however you and I both know who will eventually win that pee pee contest.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018 https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946 Last edited by 5whiskey; May 3, 2021 at 09:47 PM. |
|
May 4, 2021, 07:24 AM | #20 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,462
|
Quote:
I also don't see a prohibition from the state sup ct against making any constitutional rulings. Quote:
I read the flow of the lower court's second decision as I checked the math and 2+2 is still 4, therefore I find that 2+2+2+2=8, and here is how you do the math on that. Does the IL Sup Ct have a majority who refuse to give the letter of the law a fair reading because they hold a contrary view? That happens, but the power of embarrassment should make it rare, or at least not the predestined result.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
May 4, 2021, 05:43 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,316
|
Zukiphile-thanks for taking the time and effort to explain this. If I don't understand after all you explained I'd say the fault is on me.
|
May 4, 2021, 06:16 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,462
|
Quote:
This was easier for me to breeze through because I can see the procedural excuses and ignore them. If you don't have that wheel in your head, it's easy to be sidetracked. The lower court's description of a correct 2d Am. analysis and application to the facts reads as well written and transparent to me. (Though I admit that a sliding scale intermediate scrutiny gives me heartburn.) I'd urge people to read for that and not trip over the rest.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
|
|