IL FOID blocked

243hunter · Mar 25, 2019

Elliotte said:
Maybe I'm misreading the order, but it looks like an as-applied ruling affecting only the named defendant. Am I wrong?

You are correct. It is an applied ruling. Ruling is also going to be appealed to IL Supreme Court, They are currently looking for a new attorney to handle her appeal since her attorney is retiring.

Doctor_M · Mar 25, 2019

Good news, but I'm not going to pop the Champaign cork yet. MD will continue to push the envelope of unconstitutional infringements until Annapolis get's its wee-wee slapped directly by SCOTUS.

Kharn · Mar 25, 2019

Doctor_M said:
Good news, but I'm not going to pop the Champaign cork yet. MD will continue to push the envelope of unconstitutional infringements until Annapolis get's its wee-wee slapped directly by SCOTUS.

And even then, they'll trot out Williams' "they must state so more plainly" and do it again.

danb · Mar 25, 2019

Remember, this is the 7th. This is the circuit that made IL shall-issue. It leans conservative on the 2A. Trump has made a some appointments there too. I think that the odds are good this will stick.

Allen65 · Mar 25, 2019

danb said:
Remember, this is the 7th. This is the circuit that made IL shall-issue. It leans conservative on the 2A. Trump has made a some appointments there too. I think that the odds are good this will stick.

It's not in Federal court, it's being appealed to the IL Supreme Court. If the IL AG loses in the IL Supreme Court (SCIL?) because they find it unconstitutional under the IL constitution, I'm not sure how if, let alone how, the IL AG would take the issue Federal. That would be a fight between a state's Executive and Judicial Branches, and I'm not sure the Federal courts would want to (or could) wade into that mess.

Elliotte · Mar 25, 2019

Cases from State Supreme Courts can always be appealed to SCOTUS, the only problem is how often that court takes cases.

teratos · Mar 25, 2019

Allen65 said:
It's not in Federal court, it's being appealed to the IL Supreme Court. If the IL AG loses in the IL Supreme Court (SCIL?) because they find it unconstitutional under the IL constitution, I'm not sure how if, let alone how, the IL AG would take the issue Federal. That would be a fight between a state's Executive and Judicial Branches, and I'm not sure the Federal courts would want to (or could) wade into that mess.

It will still be a court opinion on the matter, and can be referred to in other cases. Chipping away works for both sides.

Allen65 · Mar 25, 2019

Elliotte said:
Cases from State Supreme Courts can always be appealed to SCOTUS, the only problem is how often that court takes cases.

At best, the IL AG would be wasting his time appealing to SCOTUS, given the tiny chance cert would be granted. But if cert was granted by the current SCOTUS, it would likely be to smack the IL AG even harder than SCIL.

If IL AG loses in SCIL, his only reasonable course of action would be to take his loss and walk away, like the DC AG did with Wrenn. It's not as if the bankrupt State of Illinois has spare funds laying around for quixotic legal fights, unlike MD AG who has a blank check from MGA drawn on our taxes. And worst case, he ends up presenting SCOTUS an opportunity to set a nationwide precedent that you cannot, in fact, license enumerated rights. That would up upset IL AG's Party, and he'd probably get primaried next election.

lazarus · Mar 25, 2019

Allen65 said:
At best, the IL AG would be wasting his time appealing to SCOTUS, given the tiny chance cert would be granted. But if cert was granted by the current SCOTUS, it would likely be to smack the IL AG even harder than SCIL.

If IL AG loses in SCIL, his only reasonable course of action would be to take his loss and walk away, like the DC AG did with Wrenn. It's not as if the bankrupt State of Illinois has spare funds laying around for quixotic legal fights, unlike MD AG who has a blank check from MGA drawn on our taxes. And worst case, he ends up presenting SCOTUS an opportunity to set a nationwide precedent that you cannot, in fact, license enumerated rights. That would up upset IL AG's Party, and he'd probably get primaried next election.

It wouldn't matter. I am almost positive in this case the state cannot appeal to SCOTUS. It is a case within state court. A defendant has the option to appeal any state level case to the federal supreme court, but the state does not have the option to appeal their case to SCOTUS.

So if the defendant loses in the IL Supreme court, they can appeal to Federal SCOTUS to take it up. The state cannot. They will have lost and the IL Supreme court is the final say on internal IL issues (unless the defendant should appeal to the Federal Supreme court and it would have to be if the issue touches on a federal issue, such as FEDERAL constitutionality. You have to argue why what the state is doing is unconstitutional at a federal level).

Allen65 · Mar 25, 2019

lazarus said:
It wouldn't matter. I am almost positive in this case the state cannot appeal to SCOTUS. It is a case within state court. A defendant has the option to appeal any state level case to the federal supreme court, but the state does not have the option to appeal their case to SCOTUS.

So if the defendant loses in the IL Supreme court, they can appeal to Federal SCOTUS to take it up. The state cannot. They will have lost and the IL Supreme court is the final say on internal IL issues (unless the defendant should appeal to the Federal Supreme court and it would have to be if the issue touches on a federal issue, such as FEDERAL constitutionality. You have to argue why what the state is doing is unconstitutional at a federal level).

Completely agree. But lack of a Federal claim might not stop a crusading IL AG from filing a petition, if he wants to signal to his Party that he's still fighting to the bitter end, even if it's futile and rejected from the get-go. He'd have to assert that the SCIL's decision was somehow Federally unconstitutional, which would require some serious legal contortion.

SCIL still has to hear arguments and render its decision, so for now we just need to wait and see what happens in the state that can't even manage Finance 101.

esqappellate · Mar 25, 2019

Allen65 said:
Completely agree. But lack of a Federal claim might not stop a crusading IL AG from filing a petition, if he wants to signal to his Party that he's still fighting to the bitter end, even if it's futile and rejected from the get-go. He'd have to assert that the SCIL's decision was somehow Federally unconstitutional, which would require some serious legal contortion.

SCIL still has to hear arguments and render its decision, so for now we just need to wait and see what happens in the state that can't even manage Finance 101.

Several points just to clarify: 1. The State's highest court has the final word on all matters of State law. 2. The lower court's decision in this case was based, in part at least, on the federal constitution, the Second Amendment. 3. If the State highest court (the Illinois Supreme Court here), bases its ruling on the 2A, then it has decided a question of federal constitutional law. 4. If so, then either the plaintiff OR the state (depending on who loses) may seek review (via a petition for a writ of certiorari) in the U.S. Supreme Court to address that ruling applying the 2A. 5. A State court never has the final word on questions of federal law or questions of federal constitutional law.

Blacksmith101 · Mar 25, 2019

To quote from the original article linked by the OP

4. The Court reiterates its findings and ruling in its previous Order Finding Statute Unconstitutional filed herein on February 14, 2018, that 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) is unconstitutional as applied to the defendant in her own home. The Court further finds and orders that 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) is unconstitutional as applied to the defendant in her own home, in violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the States thru the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I, Section 22 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, because it is impossible to comply with and that such statute cannot reasonably be construed in a manner that preserve its validity. The Court further finds, in compliance with Supreme Court Rule 18, that ·the finding of unconstitutionality is necessary to the decision arid that such decision cannot rest upon an altemative ground; and that the notice required by Supreme Court Rule 19 has been served and that those served with such notice have been given adequate time and opportunity under the circumstances to defend the statute.

Allen65 · Mar 25, 2019

Blacksmith101 said:
To quote from the original article linked by the OP
The Court further finds and orders that 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) is unconstitutional as applied to the defendant in her own home, in violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the States thru the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I, Section 22 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois,

If SCIL finds the statute unconstitutional under the IL Constitution, the whole COTUS/SCOTUS issue is moot. And the People of Illinois will breathe a huge sigh of relief. That is, until they remember their state is still bankrupt.

jcutonilli · Mar 25, 2019

Allen65 said:
It's not in Federal court, it's being appealed to the IL Supreme Court. If the IL AG loses in the IL Supreme Court (SCIL?) because they find it unconstitutional under the IL constitution, I'm not sure how if, let alone how, the IL AG would take the issue Federal. That would be a fight between a state's Executive and Judicial Branches, and I'm not sure the Federal courts would want to (or could) wade into that mess.

Maybe you have not heard of Caetano v MA. It was a state case where the decision addressed the 2A making it a Federal issue. This case is the same in that respect. The judge found violations of the 2A making it a Federal issue.

thomfantomas · Mar 25, 2019

Andddddddd whats in it for us? Not a fking thing

Occam · Mar 26, 2019

thomfantomas said:
Andddddddd whats in it for us? Not a fking thing

Except that every time we can point around the country and remind people that liberty and constitutionality is actually prevailing in state after state ... and there's no Wild West Bloodbath Of Redneck Fury that immediately erupts: that's evidence, and solid rhetorical ammo whenever someone's actually willing to engage in a real conversation.

babalou · Mar 26, 2019

And to follow Occam, IL is more eff’d up than MD, like NJ on ‘roids. NE state wannabe. Lol

Allen65 · Mar 26, 2019

jcutonilli said:
Maybe you have not heard of Caetano v MA. It was a state case where the decision addressed the 2A making it a Federal issue. This case is the same in that respect. The judge found violations of the 2A making it a Federal issue.

That was the defendant appealing, claiming her Federal 2A rights were being violated by the Mass Supreme Court decision. She had a very clear Federal claim in her cert petition. What Federally enumerated rights of the IL AG or the Strate of Illinois itself are being violated? None, so no standing and no Federal claim.

danb · Mar 26, 2019

Allen65 said:
That was the defendant appealing, claiming her Federal 2A rights were being violated by the Mass Supreme Court decision. She had a very clear Federal claim in her cert petition. What Federally enumerated rights of the IL AG or the Strate of Illinois itself are being violated? None, so no standing and no Federal claim.

IL statute invalidated based on 2nd Amendment. See post #31 above.

If IL chooses not to appeal, its for the same reason DC chose not to appeal in Wrenn, they don't want the decision to "go national."

press1280 · Mar 26, 2019

thomfantomas said:
Andddddddd whats in it for us? Not a fking thing

There will be if this moves up the chain some more and the IL Supremes also strike the FOID. Then it lays the groundwork for a split.
It would essentially force the basic question whether a license requirement to own a firearm is constitutional or not.

IL FOID blocked

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Certified Mad Scientist

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Grumpy Old Man

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Crna Ovca

Not Even ONE Indictment

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics