Illinois slapped down about FOID card

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Now, would the state appealing that ruling (in the interests of further making miserable the woman in question) make the matter increasingly fair game for wider precedent?

    It does seem odd that "the licensing mechanism in place is unconstitutional" would only apply to one person. The language of the ruling certainly wasn't written as if the judge was only thinking about her.

    I don't believe that appealing the ruling would make it fair game for a wider precedent. If you read the logic that was used to support the decision, it is really only applicable to people that already own a firearm, but don't have a FOID card. This is why the unconstitutionality was limited to only the defendant.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,396
    Montgomery County
    If you read the logic that was used to support the decision, it is really only applicable to people that already own a firearm, but don't have a FOID card. This is why the unconstitutionality was limited to only the defendant.

    You can understand why, when I read these words from the judge:

    "A citizen in the State of Illinois is not born with a Second Amendment right. Nor does that right insure when a citizen turns 18 or 21 years of age. It is a façade. They only gain that right if they pay a $10 fee, complete the proper application, and submit a photograph. If the right to bear arms and self-defense are truly core rights, there should be no burden on the citizenry to enjoy those rights, especially within the confines and privacy of their own homes. Accordingly, if a person does something themselves from being able to exercise being able to exercise that right, like being convicted of a felony or demonstrating mental illness, then and only then may the right be stripped from them."

    ... that it sounded me like he was thinking in much broader terms than just the case of being late to purchase an FOID card when already possessing a rifle. He's speaking directly to the entire notion of the FOID card and its burden on the right for everyone in Illinois.
     

    BeoBill

    Crank in the Third Row
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 3, 2013
    27,172
    南馬里蘭州鮑伊
    You can understand why, when I read these words from the judge:

    "A citizen in the State of Illinois is not born with a Second Amendment right. Nor does that right insure when a citizen turns 18 or 21 years of age. It is a façade. They only gain that right if they pay a $10 fee, complete the proper application, and submit a photograph. If the right to bear arms and self-defense are truly core rights, there should be no burden on the citizenry to enjoy those rights, especially within the confines and privacy of their own homes. Accordingly, if a person does something themselves from being able to exercise being able to exercise that right, like being convicted of a felony or demonstrating mental illness, then and only then may the right be stripped from them."

    ... that it sounded me like he was thinking in much broader terms than just the case of being late to purchase an FOID card when already possessing a rifle. He's speaking directly to the entire notion of the FOID card and its burden on the right for everyone in Illinois.

    There'll be a blizzard in Hell before we see a MD judge issue an opinion like that... :sad20:
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    You can understand why, when I read these words from the judge:

    "A citizen in the State of Illinois is not born with a Second Amendment right. Nor does that right insure when a citizen turns 18 or 21 years of age. It is a façade. They only gain that right if they pay a $10 fee, complete the proper application, and submit a photograph. If the right to bear arms and self-defense are truly core rights, there should be no burden on the citizenry to enjoy those rights, especially within the confines and privacy of their own homes. Accordingly, if a person does something themselves from being able to exercise being able to exercise that right, like being convicted of a felony or demonstrating mental illness, then and only then may the right be stripped from them."

    ... that it sounded me like he was thinking in much broader terms than just the case of being late to purchase an FOID card when already possessing a rifle. He's speaking directly to the entire notion of the FOID card and its burden on the right for everyone in Illinois.

    I agree that he is trying to overturn the FOID card. I am also reading the conclusion where "as applied" is underlined for emphasis. This is a narrow ruling in which the judge hopes for a more expanded outcome in the future.
     

    JohnnyE

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 18, 2013
    9,617
    MoCo
    Look at where White Co., Illinois is located. It's very rural and conservative, and closer to cotton than Chicago. We'll see how this decision holds up on appeal.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    Will this affect striking down the MD HQL?

    Not when the gun community is ok with licensing and doesn't bring the argument to the table. It's already been settled whether a right can be taxed through a license tax. This was a 1st Amendment case, but a fundamental right is a right, none the less.

    U.S. Supreme Court
    319 U.S. 105 (1943)
    MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

    "The tax imposed by the City of Jeannette is a flat license tax, the payment of which is a condition of the exercise of these constitutional privileges. The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment."

    "It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant [319 U.S. 105, 113] if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax – a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."

    "It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U.S. 174, 62 S.Ct. 1008, 139 A.L.R. 1436, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution."
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,579
    Hazzard County
    This is what torques me about the Federal Circuit system. Why are the laws between the several federal circuits different? Why is an FOID that is ruled as unconstitutional in one circuit not unconstitutional in another circuit.

    That annoying Hawaiian district judge needs a long-lost conservative step brother in Texas.
     

    Trepang

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 10, 2015
    3,341
    Southern Illinois
    Look at where White Co., Illinois is located. It's very rural and conservative, and closer to cotton than Chicago. We'll see how this decision holds up on appeal.


    You nailed it.

    Chicago politics control the state. Sadly, it's always been that way.

    I am from the pointy end of the state. Conservative with more pigs, heads of cattle and coal than people. My home town's population is 450. My senior class had 17 of us in it - there is night and day difference between home and the upper 1/3 of the state but they make the rules for the rest of the state.
     

    bigmancrisler

    2A Preacher
    Jun 4, 2020
    1,263
    Martinsburg, WV
    Back in February I went back to see my Dad in Southern Illinois.

    A small gun shop in Pana, IL had eight Garands, three 1903A3, and two 1903s. All CMP Rack, Field and Service grade. $900 - $1300.

    In addition to the cool old guns they had several ARs between $800-$1000.

    Without a FOID, they wouldn't even talk to me about selling me one.


    I see a K98 in there too.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    JohnnyE

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 18, 2013
    9,617
    MoCo
    You nailed it.

    Chicago politics control the state. Sadly, it's always been that way.

    I am from the pointy end of the state. Conservative with more pigs, heads of cattle and coal than people. My home town's population is 450. My senior class had 17 of us in it - there is night and day difference between home and the upper 1/3 of the state but they make the rules for the rest of the state.

    Years of experience, my friend, years of experience.

    I grew up on the North Shore, studied law down in the Loop, and have a bunch of experience with the Circuit Court of Cook County.

    I lived there while Richard J. Daley was alive and well until he wasn't, to be succeeded by Bilandic, then replaced by Byrne, then by Washington, then by Hayes, then I came here.
     

    243hunter

    Active Member
    Oct 26, 2012
    479
    Illinois
    this case has already been to the IL supreme court once, and was sent back down to circuit court with they didn't have grounds to rule on the constitutionality and has now been ruled unconstitutional a second time, so this most like will get sent straight back to the IL supreme court. Until either a appeals court or the IL supreme court rules on this case there is no precedence set.
     

    PowPow

    Where's the beef?
    Nov 22, 2012
    4,713
    Howard County
    Back in February I went back to see my Dad in Southern Illinois.

    A small gun shop in Pana, IL had eight Garands, three 1903A3, and two 1903s. All CMP Rack, Field and Service grade. $900 - $1300.

    In addition to the cool old guns they had several ARs between $800-$1000.

    Without a FOID, they wouldn't even talk to me about selling me one.

    When I was a kid, we lived in Mattoon, which wasn't too far from Pana. I did a lot of fishing at Lake Shelbyville. Used to ride my bike there!
     

    243hunter

    Active Member
    Oct 26, 2012
    479
    Illinois
    When I was a kid, we lived in Mattoon, which wasn't too far from Pana. I did a lot of fishing at Lake Shelbyville. Used to ride my bike there!

    I'm 50 miles southwest of Mattoon, and 35 southeast of Pana. So you guys are in my neighborhood.
     

    krucam

    Ultimate Member
    this case has already been to the IL supreme court once, and was sent back down to circuit court with they didn't have grounds to rule on the constitutionality and has now been ruled unconstitutional a second time, so this most like will get sent straight back to the IL supreme court. Until either a appeals court or the IL supreme court rules on this case there is no precedence set.

    Yup, being appealed back to the IL Supreme Court again...now go away or I will taunt you a SECOND time...

    https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/5...MJ249mZMyZonKhUCDpzhbcCfK6Pav4jZcuBgrEGygQKSw
     

    bluedog46

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 2, 2011
    1,415
    Delaware is doing a permission to buy as well. Also they just passed a mag limit of 17 rounds. Not sure were the commie ba*tards got the number from but I prediceted much of this years ago and what called all kinds of names.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,426
    Messages
    7,281,229
    Members
    33,452
    Latest member
    J_Gunslinger

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom