Illinois judge rules FOID card 'unconstitutional'

[Dial H For Hero]

https://khqa.com/newsletter-daily/illinois-judge-rules-foid-card-unconstitutional

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WICS/WRSP) — An Illinois judge has ruled that Illinois' Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card law is unconstitutional.

The 2017 case, The People of Illinois vs. Vivian Claudine Brown, comes after Vivian Brown was accused of possessing a firearm without a FOID card.

Brown argued that she "was a law-abiding person charged with possessing an otherwise lawful firearm without a FOID card solely within the confines of her home and that requiring her to go through the FOID card process unconstitutionally infringed upon her fundamental right of self-defense in this 'most private of areas.'"

White County Judge T. Scott Webb agreed.

(Excerpt)

Good.

[Frasier Balzov]

1. How did she get the gun?

She couldn't have bought it in Illinois through a retail store transaction without a FOID card.

Very wary of encouraging the proliferation of guns and ammunition.

Even WITH a system which tries to track the identity of who is possessing.

In my opinion, FOID is not a strong enough deterrent to possession.

And here is a Circuit Court judge attempting to weaken it, contrary to the public interest.

[Angleae]

6. She might not have bought it in Illinois.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. Or she may have bought it in Illinois before FOID requirements.

Or moved there from another state or inherited it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. "In my opinion, FOID is not a strong enough deterrent to possession."

I don't agree with that sentiment at all- but I *do* respect your willingness to abandon
the usual gun-prohibitionist mealymouthedness about what your actual goals are.

[RotorHead]

54. May I please see your -BOID-?

Book Owners Identification Card?

[Frasier Balzov]

58. False equivalency.

Balzov don't play dat, son.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

59. Well, SON...

...In pari materia.

Equivalent enough for me.

For you, are some rights not really rights?

[Frasier Balzov]

61. I think of those kids at Sandy Hook and Marjorie Stoneman

and truly wonder what rights you could possibly be claiming for yourself or anyone else.

Those are extreme examples of your rights hypocrisy.

The commonplace everyday examples abound.

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. "Think of the children" is a longtime tactic of crooks, demagogues, and moral panic-mongers

Aside from gun control advocates, the most notorious current example is the transphobic "bathroom safety advocates"
running amok in Republican polities.

There was also, for example, the notorious Charles Keating, who made a great show of being an antipornography
activist- and later went to prison for looting millions as a white-collar criminal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_Decent_Literature

Citizens for Decent Literature was a pro-censorship advocacy body founded in 1956 in Cincinnati, Ohio by the Roman Catholic anti-pornography campaigner Charles Keating which advocated reading classics, not "smut."

It was later renamed a number of times to various names, the best known of which was Citizens for Decency through Law.

It would grow to 300 chapters and 100,000 members nationwide and become the largest anti-pornography organization in the nation. Over the following 20 years the organization mailed some 40 million letters on behalf of its position and had filed amicus curiae briefs.

Under the name Citizens for Decency through Law, the CDL was still active as of 2002, although it did not have a website.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

"Think of the children" (also "What about the children?&quot is a cliché that evolved into a rhetorical tactic.Literally, it refers to children's rights (as in discussions of child labor).In debate, however, it is a plea for pity that is used as an appeal to emotion, and therefore it becomes a logical fallacy.

Art, Argument, and Advocacy (2002) argued that the appeal substitutes emotion for reason in debate. Ethicist Jack Marshall wrote in 2005 that the phrase's popularity stems from its capacity to stunt rationality, particularly discourse on morals.

BTW, "it's to save children" is an old, dishonorable political schtick

[RotorHead]

64. Since there is no Right to murder people...

I have to wonder what 'Rights' -you- are thinking of...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

66. re "...wonder what rights you could possibly be claiming..."

Exactly these: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript#toc-the-u-s-bill-of-rights

And none of those are more or less and any of the others.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. BTW...

...a few of us were a bit amused with your handle when you joined.
Welcome.

[RotorHead]

63. Thank you.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

67. :)

[RotorHead]

65. How so?

Lots of dangerous ideas in books. Ideas that have literally killed millions.

Surely that requires additional regulation by the government, yes?

[Gidney N Cloyd]

2. The Illitucky circuit, one of 2 dozen IL circuits, and he's one of a dozen judges in it.

I can't imagine this dumb ruling ever standing.

[yagotme]

24. As I understand it, it's for this case only.

IL Supremes will have to make hay out of it.

[James48]

3. Interesting case.

She is saying that the weapon is inside her house, and she has a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Past Supreme Court cases would say that is a simple regulation, and it should be Constitutional to require. But who knows what THIS Supreme Court would say?

In the meantime- it’s a thorny issue to deal with.

[Atticus]

4. "Good"? Did you mean "Good God!" Or should we just remove ALL common sense statutes that

do nothing that "infringes" on the rights of law-abiding gun owners?

[yagotme]

11. "Infringes..."

Wait time for a new FOID is approx. 1 yr. at this time. Pre-pandemic was 2-4 months. What if you moved to a new district in September, went to register to vote, and was told it would be 4-5 months, if not longer, before you could vote. What doe "infringe" mean, again? A right delayed, is a right denied right? Poll tax? FOID's cost money. Not a lot, but if they charged a $5 poll tax every year, would that be OK? Forget the free lawyer, need to pay a % of his fee, if you can afford it or not.

[Atticus]

12. I'm sure that, like everything else, responses to FOID apps are slower due to

Covid, but one year is WAY longer than in my state and any delay will go back go normal soon.

The comparison of the right to vote to the right to own a firearm is just too silly to merit a response.
.
And, the comparison of the modest fee for a FOID card---similar to other modest fees charged by most governments to defray the expense of the paperwork and record keeping for all sorts of documentation---to a poll tax shows that you are willing to stretch the facts beyond all recognition to fit your preference.

I wonder---are there ANY restrictions or requirements associated with gun possession or ownership with which you agree? Or, are you one of the people who advocates "Constitutional carry" and NO restrictions on who can own any firearm he or she deems necessary and appropriate?

[yagotme]

13. Call a poll tax a "fee" to defray costs of the election...

See how this works?

And the state was approx. 5-6 months behind, prior to Covid, so "normal" is a questionable thing. There are lawsuits filed against the state, as it was supposed to be a 1-2 month wait for responses. The state being behind, even with NICS call ins, can cause a delay to purchase, instead of a proceed. This is in conjunction with a 3-day waiting period. If I have a FOID card, and an "Instant" background check, why am I required to wait, also? Heat of the moment? I already have had a FOID for several years, so chances are high I already have a firearm to use.

"The comparison of the right to vote to the right to own a firearm is just too silly to merit a response."

What, to compare constitutional rights is "silly"? (And yet, you did respond.) Anything else in the Bill of Rights you want delayed, fees applied, or taken away? And, you state that

"similar to other modest fees charged by most governments to defray the expense of the paperwork and record keeping for all sorts of documentation"

could, and have been, applied to poll taxes.

Ahh, restrictions, and "constitutional carry". How about "constitutional speech"? Does that sound like a silly arrangement?

U.S. v Miller: A lot of gun prohibitionists love to use this court case, but basically he was denied in absentia, as he was deceased at the time of the hearing. The court denied the possession of the "sawed off shotgun", as it was "not in current usage by the military." Remember that statement. The court WAS wrong, as shotguns were in use at the time, the "trench broom". Now, if one reads the noted statement above, it would seem that the court at that time would view a "current" military arm as permissible use. Let the meaning of that sink in.

My belief: A "citizen", one of the "people" listed in the 2d, is one who has lawful citizenship, not been convicted of any felony which carries a sentence of over 1 year incarceration, and is of lawful age to vote. This is the base from which I would expound on. Mental patients, those who don't have full control of their faculties (Severe Alzheimers, etc.), temporary bans on assault charges, domestics, etc. Younger children allowed to handle weapons under parental supervision. As far as type of weapon, no extreme mass casualty type. No, I don't want John Brown down the street to keep a Trident III missile with a multi-tipped nuclear payload in his front yard. However, if he has, and can afford, a 155mm howitzer, and has a place to safely shoot it (not likely, anyway), I'd love to see it go off. People legally own machine guns, mortars, bazookas, and even tanks with functioning armaments. Know why you never see these in the news? Because they're LEGALLY owned, by upright citizens, and the cost of the system/fees, and jail time if used inappropriately, keeps them in check. Along with NOT wanting to murder anybody. The machine guns you DO see in the news, are either illegal ones, or not really machineguns. Because few in the media don't know what they're reporting on, with knowledge of firearms. Everything's either a Glock, an AK-47, or an AR-15/M-16. Hope this clears some things up.

[Atticus]

14. I don"t think anything I could say could be more revealing of how extreme your views are than

to simply ask others to READ your last response.

I thought that's where your head was, but did not want to say something I couldn't back up. You've just taken care of that.

[yagotme]

22. Extreme views?

To think that an inalienable right shouldn't be taxed, delayed, fees added to, or outright denied due to your location? I offered the poll tax as an example of government repressing the rights of individuals. Not advocating for it, but to use it as an apples/apples comparison. Also, to add the other rights I mentioned. Why does the 2d mean so little to you? I assumed that's where your head was at, but like you, waited until you made your own case. If you are willing to deny others one right listed in the BOR, what others are you willing to deny? Political enemies? Someone you don't like, personally? Like the freedom of speech, ALL need the right, or it's not a "right", just a "I'll let you know if you can do it or not. Wait until you receive your permission slip."

[MarineCombatEngineer]

23. +100. nt

[Hawker123]

25. Correct, thank you

[Atticus]

28. Obviously, there is little to be gained by further back-and-forth with you and your choir but,

for the others who may see this thread, let's make a few things clear:

---it should be understood that the inalienable right you mention is "as currently interpreted by a right-wing majority on a SCOTUS no longer concerned with precedent." If our nation survives, that will change.

---firearms are "products" and are subject to tax just as nearly all products are, but the RIGHT to own a firearm is not "taxed".

---the "delays" now complained of are due in large part to covid, just like the delays in receiving new license plates or in filing our taxes.

---the "fees" involved are small and are only payable once every 10 years. This is not an obstacle to anyone who wants to legally possess a firearm.

---I can't respond to "outright denied due to your location" because I am unaware that has ever happened---i.e. "You cannot own a firearm because you live in BLANK County."

---it is not that the 2nd Amendment means "so little" to me; it is just that there are other rights to be considered and the current out-of-context interpretation of the "right to bear arms" is contrary to about a century's worth of prior SCOTUS rulings and was essentially "purchased" by the efforts of right wing extremists over several decades.

---I have not even suggested that any right be denied to anyone. I know that doesn't "fit" with your contrivance, but it is the truth. I simply disagree with your view that denial of the sacred "right to bear arms" to anyone---such as those on the "no fly" list, those adjudicated mentally incompetent or those LEGALLY blind---is impermissible.

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. Such declaratory. Many emphatic. And not only wrong, but wrong-headed

Let's give your various argumenta ad nauseum et argumnta ad declarare a fisking, shall we?

---it should be understood that the inalienable right you mention is "as currently interpreted by a right-wing majority on a SCOTUS no longer concerned with precedent." If our nation survives, that will change.

Telepsychology has always been part and parcel of gun control advocacy. Seems "claimed powers of prophecy"
can be added to that list...

---firearms are "products" and are subject to tax just as nearly all products are, but the RIGHT to own a firearm is not "taxed".

The State of Minnesota also tried similar word games , and got slapped down 8-1 by the Supremes
for their trouble:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/460/575/

Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Comm'r, 460 U.S. 575 (1983)

...Minnesota exempted newspapers from a four percent sales tax set up by the state, but they were subject to a four percent use tax on the costs of ink and paper, which applied to any publication. Each newspaper received an annual tax credit of $4,000 through an exemption from the use tax for the first $100,000 of ink and paper that was used by a publication in a calendar year. However, in 1974, 11 papers used more than $100,000 in ink and paper, making them liable for the use tax; in 1975, 13 papers were required to pay the tax. The Minnesota Tribune argued that it should be refunded for the use taxes that it had paid because the law unconstitutionally restricted the freedom of the press under the First Amendment and also violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment...

Opinions

Majority

Sandra Day O'Connor (Author)
Warren Earl Burger
William Joseph Brennan, Jr.
Thurgood Marshall
Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr.
John Paul Stevens
Harry Andrew Blackmun

Strict scrutiny is appropriate for analyzing this restriction on the freedom of the press, which specifically targets an area protected by the First Amendment. The state argues that it has a substantial interest in raising revenue, but it could accomplish this goal by taxing all businesses generally rather than the press. While the press is also benefited by being exempted from the four percent sales tax, differential treatment on its face is constitutionally questionable because it creates a precedent for future differential treatment that could be more burdensome on the press. It also would be difficult to implement a rule that tied the constitutionality of a measure to the effective tax burdens that would result, since courts lack the expertise to evaluate different methods of taxation.

Moreover, this ink and paper tax is unconstitutional not only because it treats the press differently but also because it treats a certain small group of newspapers differently. The state may not be allowed to devise a tax scheme to single out certain members of the press under any circumstances, no matter how compelling the interest that it cites. A tax of which the entire burden is borne by a small part of the whole resembles a penalty for large newspapers rather than an effort to favor smaller newspapers...

---it is not that the 2nd Amendment means "so little" to me; it is just that there are other rights to be considered and the current out-of-context interpretation of the "right to bear arms" is contrary to about a century's worth of prior SCOTUS rulings

Which "prior SCOTUS rulings" would those be? Kindly enlighten our ignorance, O Wise One.

---I have not even suggested that any right be denied to anyone...

And then, two sentences later, you do that very thing:

... I simply disagree with your view that denial of the sacred "right to bear arms" to anyone---such as those on the "no fly" list, those adjudicated mentally incompetent or those LEGALLY blind---is impermissible.

Of course, that's not a self-contradiction to *you*- because you don't think people have a right to keep and bear arms...

[Atticus]

30. I'm sure you think that post makes sense, don't you?

Bless your heart!

[Dial H For Hero]

31. I'm sure you think that post was an effective rebuttal, don't you?

BTW, speaking of "choirs" who all think alike, you should check out Castle Bansalot. At least this group allow debate...

[Hawker123]

40. So very true

[MarineCombatEngineer]

32. Made perfect sense to me,

and I don't even own a firearm, nor want to.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. Peeved because your self-righteous sermonizing didn't get a receptive audience?

It's understandable- decades of political ineffectiveness tends to make people a bit tetchy.


I recommend the George Aiken approach- declare victory and leave.


No doubt that you'll be quite successful at Castle Bansalot in getting those who already agree with you
to continue to do so

[Hawker123]

41. Unlike castle bansalot

That poster won't be banned here for having an opinion. Maybe they could go over there and ask why they are scared of people voicing an opinion.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

52. All I can say has been better said before.

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/noam_chomsky_108350

[Hawker123]

42. Unlike castle bansalot

That poster won't be banned here for having an opinion. Maybe they could go over there and ask why they are scared of people voicing an opinion.

[Irish_Dem]

45. What is Castle Bansalot?

I never heard of it before.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

46. Have a link:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1262

Blocked list currently = 104.

[Irish_Dem]

47. Thank you for the info.

Had no idea what it was and what they were talking about.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

48. For reference...

Under the topic category: Justice & Public Safety there are 5 specific groups:
Civil Liberties: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1168
Drug Policy: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1170
Gun Control & RKBA: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172
Gun Control Reform Activism: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262
True Crime: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1201

[Irish_Dem]

49. I had no idea these groups existed on DU.

I am actually interested in two of the topics under the major heading of Justice and Public Safety.
Will go take a look.

Thank you again!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

50. You're welcome

I find the Civil Liberties group interesting and I subscribe to it.

Have a great day.

[Irish_Dem]

51. Yes that is one I am interested in as well.

Thanks!

[RotorHead]

56. Surely you can explain where s/he was incorrect, yes?

No rush, we'll wait.

[yagotme]

33. Let's look at some of these...

"---firearms are "products" and are subject to tax just as nearly all products are, but the RIGHT to own a firearm is not "taxed". "

Again, the FOID card is a requirement in IL to own a firearm. Has nothing to do with the firearm itself, it is a "fee" (tax) paid by the individual for "permission" from the government to "keep" an arm.

"---the "delays" now complained of are due in large part to covid, just like the delays in receiving new license plates or in filing our taxes."

You wanted others to read my post, but you obviously didn't. Not entirely. You skipped the part about delays for the FOID (and CCW cards) being pre-Covid, and the lawsuits started prior to Covid. It's a staffing issue, the State Police not hiring enough people to handle the caseload.

"---I can't respond to "outright denied due to your location" because I am unaware that has ever happened---i.e. "You cannot own a firearm because you live in BLANK County."

All 50 states have some type of concealed carry law, but some are "May Issue". Which means, you can be denied for any, or no, reason at all. Look up requirements for purchasing a gun in NY City, for example. Nearly impossible for the layman. Chicago had bans until recently, getting slapped by the USSC changed that (McDonald vs Chicago).

"---it is not that the 2nd Amendment means "so little" to me; it is just that there are other rights to be considered and the current out-of-context interpretation of the "right to bear arms" is contrary to about a century's worth of prior SCOTUS rulings and was essentially "purchased" by the efforts of right wing extremists over several decades."

"Other rights to be considered..." Well, we're discussing the 2d, so which rights do you feel take precedent over it in this discussion? You want my exact opinion on this subject, but have given little of your own on how things should be done. Results, and how they are implemented, would be nice.

"---I have not even suggested that any right be denied to anyone. I know that doesn't "fit" with your contrivance, but it is the truth. I simply disagree with your view that denial of the sacred "right to bear arms" to anyone---such as those on the "no fly" list, those adjudicated mentally incompetent or those LEGALLY blind---is impermissible."

You know, that "no fly" list wasn't exactly anything to write home about. You could get on the list, not know you're on the list, until you tried to get on an airplane, and have little in the way to get yourself removed. Re: Ted Kennedy. He was on it. Name similarity. And, if you read my post a little closer, I believe I did cover the mentally incompetent aspect (failure to fully read, again?). I also stated my list was to be expounded on, and was giving just an initial bare-bones starting point.

ETA: And as far as your statement of "that any right be denied to anyone", your post #4 spoke volumes to this. I could hear the condescending tone over the keyboard.

[Straw Man]

39. And yet ...

The comparison of the right to vote to the right to own a firearm is just too silly to merit a response.

... both are constitutionally protected. Imagine that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. Sounds to me *very* much to me like the RW attempts to gut Roe v Wade, Obergfell v Hughes, etc

[Dial H For Hero]

15. I would hardly call making someone watih months to exercise a constitutional "common sense".

[Atticus]

16. Yeah, let's just sell AR-15s out of vending machines. Anyone with the cash can buy one NOW! nt

[Dial H For Hero]

17. That's essentially the way it has *always* been when it comes to private sales between individuals.

At a recent Wyoming gun show, a friend of mine overheard someone making a failed attempt to sell a vintage S&W revolver (Model 25 in .45 LC) to a dealer. As the guy kept moving, my friend approached him, and after a few minutes of negotiations handed him a thousand dollars and the gun was his. No paperwork, background check, tax, etc.

Had it been an AR-15 the process would have been identical. This is what's called the gun show "loophole", which is silly as an identical transaction between two individuals could have taken place virtually anywhere.

[Atticus]

18. And, you think that's OK? nt

[Dial H For Hero]

19. Yes I do. nt

[Atticus]

20. Case closed. There is no more doubt about your agenda. nt

[Dial H For Hero]

21. My agenda is simply supporting present federal gun laws, with one exception.

I would remove SBR's and silencers from the NFA.

What's your agenda? Were you to get every gun law you wished for, what would change?

[Hawker123]

26. Definitely agree with suppressors

[Dial H For Hero]

27. In some European countries, they're essentially sold over the counter.

No $200 tax stamp, no waiting for a year (or more) to be approved.

[yagotme]

34. Some countries, (Finland is one, IIRC),

that MANDATE silencers on hunting weapons. Loud noise/public nuisance/bad for game.

[oneshooter]

36. France is another.

[RotorHead]

57. Please explain this "agenda" you see?

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. "(diminuative of 'James') (species of corvid)" laws were *also* held to be "common sense"...

Last edited Sat May 1, 2021, 12:32 PM - Edit history (1)

...in certain benighted locales back in the day.

Merely a coincidence, I'm sure...

[The Mouth]

37. Hopefully

The Supreme Court will strike down the 1934 and 1968 gun control acts and eliminate all state and local prohibitions to owning or carrying.

[Dial H For Hero]

38. Extraordinaily unlikely. More plausibly, they may mandate that every state be at least

shall-issue, and possibly mandate national reciprocity, which would suit me just fine.

[The Mouth]

53. Me too. I'd be happy with that

I do like the idea of swaths of gun haters choking in fits of apoplexy, though.

Getting rid of all restrictions on what a person may own would be a nice additional slap at the people who consider it their right to have a say about what is in my gun closet, though.

[RotorHead]

55. How is the FOID 'common sense"?

[USALiberal]

5. Lol, ok! Nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. I am on the fence regarding the Illinois FOID system...

...and other similar systems. I hope soon the line dividing the state's power to reasonably regulate gun access as affirmed in the Heller decision and what is an actual infringement on individual rights will be clearly drawn by the courts.

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. Friends in IL that have gotten FOID cards report the system as fair, albeit...

...excruciatingly slow.

As you said, it remains for the courts to decide whether that amounts to an unlawful infringement.

I'm reminded of the old line: "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence (or stupidity)"