A three-judge panel of the Illinois 4th District Appellate Court ruled on April 29 that the Illinois Firearms Owner Identification card scheme, required to purchase or possess a gun in the state, is constitutional.
In the case Guns Save Life v. Kelly, two of the three judges on the court somehow managed to miss the point that there is no historical precedent for being required to have a special permission card to purchase a firearm, a requirement set down by the 2022 Bruen decision.
In the ruling on the case, Judge Thomas Harris seemed to indicate that some laws back during the founding bore a faint resemblance to the FOID requirement, so all is well with Illinois’ restrictive scheme.
“In short, if we follow the guidance of Rahimi that ‘[t]he law must comport with the principles underlying the Second Amendment’ but that ‘it need not be a dead ringer or a historical twin’, we can glean a relevant principle from the loyalty oath statutes: the government may screen its citizens for entitlement to possess arms by having them sign a statement that they do not fit into a category of individuals whose possession of firearms would threaten the safety of the community,” the ruling concluded. “The FOID Act is an implementation of that principle.”
In a lengthy dissent, Judge Craig DeArmond meticulously analyzed the majority’s case, highlighting its insufficient consideration of the Bruen standards.
“My colleagues fail to recognize the unique nature of a constitutional challenge under the Second Amendment,” DeArmond wrote. “In doing so, they ignore the historical framework within which the Second Amendment was enacted and the clear direction we have been given by the United States Supreme Court when considering a Second Amendment challenge. The special concurrence denies awareness of ‘any Supreme Court precedent characterizing a challenge under the Second Amendment as unique in nature.’ The inability of the special concurrence to recognize how the landscape surrounding constitutional challenges has dramatically changed post-Bruen, even after reading the four foundational cases I discuss below, is not a limitation on the unique nature of Second Amendment challenges.”
Judge DeArmond concluded: “The founders understood almost everyone had the right to keep and bear arms, unless and until there was some basis for removal. The FOID Act presumes no one has the right to keep and bear arms, unless and until the right holder proves otherwise. This is the definition of unconstitutional.”
Interestingly, the ruling came only two months after another case, State of Illinois v. Vivian Claudine Brown, in which a federal judge ruled that the state law requiring citizens to have a Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) card to possess a firearm in the home for personal protection is unconstitutional.
In the ruling on the case, White County Resident Circuit Judge T. Scott Webb wrote: “The Defendant’s possession of a .22-caliber rifle within the confines of her home, even without a valid FOID card, falls squarely within the protections afforded her by the Second Amendment.”
The case revolves around defendant Vivian Claudine Brown and a rifle she owned. According to court papers, in March 2017, Brown’s husband called the police and said she was firing a gun inside their home. When officers arrived, they found a rifle beside the bed that Brown owned for self-defense, but found no evidence it had been fired. Additionally, Brown denied firing the gun, and other occupants of the residence denied hearing any shots.
Shortly thereafter, the state attorney charged Brown with possession of a firearm without having an FOID card, a class A misdemeanor under Illinois state law.
In his ruling, Judge Webb said everything about the case pointed toward the unconstitutionality of the FOID requirement.
“After analyzing all the evidence in this matter, this court finds that the Defendant’s activity of possessing a firearm within the confines of her home is an act protected by the Second Amendment,” Judge Webb concluded. “Additionally, there are no historical analogs to the FOID Act as required in Bruen. Finally, the court finds that any fee associated with exercising the core fundamental Constitutional right of armed self-defense within the confines of one’s home violates the Second Amendment.”
Those lefty judges just never give up, do they.
This nation has a severe shortage of tar/feathers and rails.
Yet only 250yrs ago …….. how soon some forget what totalitarianism is.
Once again the vast majority of Gun Owners saying, “That’s Unconstitutional” has failed. Until Gun Control is Defined Daily by its Diaboical Historical Analogies for legislatures, courts and the public the same old tit for tat pucker up and kiss Gun Control Behind will continue.
Gun Control is the best pal Racism and Genocide ever had.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=4hH4mvlfOVI&si=b0E5-2HkVCdhNGwO
And defining it apparently fails without courts stepping in around New Orleans so your method doesn’t work in your own backyard. So what is your point?
“Those lefty judges just never give up, do they.”
No, because there is no personal consequence for ignoring higher court instructions/rulings. Same for legislators who willfully disregard court precedent and the Constitution.
SCOTUS needs to slap the chit out of fat boy & Kwame. @1% complied with gun registration. @Guess how many AR’s are residing in ILLannoy?🙄
At least 1/2 of SCOTUS needs slapped.
How is gifting them the vote a century ago working out??? Or Grandpa/Great Grandpa needs slapped.
“In short, if we follow the guidance of Rahimi that ‘[t]he law must comport with the principles underlying the Second Amendment’ but that ‘it need not be a dead ringer or a historical twin’,”
Washington Gun Law has a very recent video out now about this will be the argument that the progressive courts will use to find any gun law they like Constitutional based on anything they deem similar enough to pass Bruen standards. Thanks a lot Justice John Roberts. The big question is if that is what SCOTUS will do too? Maybe that is why they have been avoiding granting cert to the Snopes case AWB.
The more they do so the more likely Ukraine drone lessons learned will be likely to proliferate for civilian innovations instead of conventional arms. Just learning what the agricultural ones can do is unsettling.
Yes, with Rahimi, the SC paved the way around Bruen.
Punk ass judges
Yes, IL FOID does, in fact, go against the Constitution.
So NO mention-where does it go from here? To the full circuit? To SCOTUS?
…two of the three judges on the court somehow managed to miss the point that there is no historical precedent for being required to have a special permission card to purchase a firearm…
Did they? Did they really, truly, miss the point? Or did they go looking for a reason to ignore it?
Considering the mental gymnastics required to reach the decision, I think it’s pretty obvious that they engaged in the latter behavior. I also think that it’s fairly obvious that this is a specific tactic more generally elucidated by Chuck Schumer a few weeks back.
On a more general level here, ignoring judges who may occasionally get suckered or just get it wrong: Let’s be real here, they hate you. They hate everything about you. They’re very clear and open about this.
So, that being the case, one might ponder the question of why you constantly give them the benefit of the doubt even in simple things like the way you speak about them. No, they didn’t miss the point and, no, they’re not stupid or crazy.
They hate you and this is part and parcel of a multipronged attack on you, yours and your way of life because all of the above are all well within the bucket of things these people would like to make go away. And, protestations aside, both their strategy and tactics are actually pretty well thought out and rather deftly executed. Consider that Alinsky posited 12 Rules. This action here comports with numbers 3, 4, 6, 8, 11 and 12.
You don’t hit six of 12 potential targets all in one stroke by accident.
Now, since no one in the past 40 years seems to have picked up a book and actually read it because that’s TLDR, let’s check out Von Clausewitz on the topic. Because, sometimes, when you read a book you find some useful stuff in places that many people wouldn’t expect.
24. WAR IS A MERE CONTINUATION OF POLICY BY OTHER MEANS.
We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.
Allow me to translate:
War and politics are not separate things or instances which can be neatly divided. They’re parts of a continuum and, within a nation state (or often between them), there is no way to exactly identify when you move from one to the other because, in essence, they’re the same thing. War is politics by other means while politics is war by other means.
So, for example: A trade war is a war without the classic level of violence but it’s still a political contest between rival nations. It is therefore both a form of “political commerce” and a political instrument and a form of warfare all at the same time. It is also, clearly, mixed with other forms of warfare such as spying, IP theft/defense etc.
Stop thinking that “war” means shots fired, bombs dropped and ISR in the air finding targets on which we will maneuver with the intent to destroy them. It doesn’t. There are other forms of warfare. What, you think .mil has psychological warfare operations because they’re so damn peaceful? bUt ThEy DoN’T ShoOt! *facepalm*
Germany was at war with the USSR before the first shot was fired. The USSR simply didn’t know it, yet. Operation Barbarossa didn’t happen because the German High Command tripped, fell down and accidentally invaded Russia FFS.
Start viewing it this way at all levels, not because it’s convenient (though it is) but because it’s CORRECT.
For example; look for guerilla tactics and then apply those to intra-nationstate psychological warfare to control their own population, which is what you’re seeing here. Now consider the levels of guerrilla warfare. It ain’t all shooting people in the face. We have sabotage, psychological operations, area denial, recce, intelligence gathering, logistics etc.
Maybe you don’t like that term. OK, let’s call it a “Political Fabian Strategy” because we’re all huge fans of Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus and we can’t stop nerding out about the Romans. Or, perhaps you prefer the term “mid level violence”. I don’t much care.
The point is that these judges are willing to take being overruled in a trade to cost the plaintiff scarce resources while also using the plaintiff’s resources (taxes paid) against them. Making someone essentially fight themselves at great cost is guerilla warfare 101.
I steal your landmines, plant them along lines of drift and now you have to go looking for your own mines and hope you don’t step on them while I harass your forces the entire time. This is simply the non-kinetic version of that.
Thusly, politics is war by other means.
Yes, most thusly.
And these judges are activists first, judges second because Gramsci. They hate you and they’re engaged in a form of warfare against you because Gramsci and Foucault.
Like it or not, you’re in a period of civil strife, sometimes referred to as a “cold civil war” that may or may not turn into a hot civil war. The 1850’s went hot, the 1960’s didn’t.
In such circumstances it is always best to 1. understand where you actually are and 2. plan for the worst while working towards the best.
“Like it or not, you’re in a period of civil strife,. . .”
Yes, the country has been at war with itself since the founding: one tribe looking for a monarch, and hereditary aristocracy; the other contending that people are sovereign, and can govern themselves.
Never had you pegged as an optimist but it has been a year of surprises.
I think it’s highly worth considering that this is far more than the usual level of civil conflict considering the current level of politically motivated violence is really rather rare in our history.
Definitions being what they are and quibble-able, I’m not going to argue the point.
I’ll simply say it’s worth keeping an eye on in my mind because the way these things go sideways is the same as a bankruptcy is said to occur. Slowly at first and then all at once.
This is not surprising, since the 4th knows the SCOTUS will not here anything involving the 2nd Amendment anytime soon. The FOID is not just about a required to purchase or possess a gun and ammunition, but includes much more with PICA passing in Illinois in 2023. The FOID is connected with PICA.
Once again semantics becomes the ammunition in the never ending conflict of the castration of the Constitution to make We the People a conquerable enemy of the tyrants seeking the demise of America. Their fancy speeches designed to make their destruction of our source of preserving the Republic a noble cause, because they are saving lives while killing the very rights that are beyond their reach held securely in the hands of God Almighty. No matter what, we must loudly and forcefully remind them, “…shall not be infringed.” is the unaltering deterrent to their desires to attempt to pull that right out of the eternal grasp of the hands of God.
A few Million dollars to a couple of judges gets a Large Majority of it’s Citizens on the menu for consumption of their God given Rights.