19 Comments - Demoralized - Wednesday, Nov 20, 19 @ 11:12 am: If they are arguing that the card can never be revoked I can’t imagine they will win that argument. The government has a legitimate interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of convicted criminals. And the federal Supreme Court has stated that there can be restrictions placed on firearms ownership. I’m thinking criminal convictions meet that standard. - too little - Wednesday, Nov 20, 19 @ 11:15 am: Awesome when politicians stand firm on the “no diminishment” clause when referencing the State Constitution on pensions, but ignore the “shall not be infringed” language in the US Constitution on the 2nd Amendment. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Nov 20, 19 @ 11:20 am: ==but ignore the “shall not be infringed” language== Contrary to the arguments certain individual make regarding the 2nd Amendment there is no constitutional right that is absolute. I can’t think of any constitutional right that doesn’t have some sort of exception or restriction on the exercise of that right. - Chili - Wednesday, Nov 20, 19 @ 11:22 am: :: . I’m thinking criminal convictions meet that standard :: Felonies yes, something that is likely a well deserved slap across the face, nope. - revvedup - Wednesday, Nov 20, 19 @ 11:32 am: Kwame is already in trouble in the State’s reply brief, because the U.S. Supreme Court has held the claimed “intermediate scrutiny” as invalid in 2nd Amendment cases. The correct standard is “strict scrutiny”, which is a much higher legal standard (see Heller I). - fs - Wednesday, Nov 20, 19 @ 12:00 pm: == Jensen told the justices that the federal law doesn’t necessarily matter to Johnson, as she could easily buy a gun from a non-licensed firearms dealer== Not without a valid foid card she can’t, and compliance with Federal law is a condition the State can use to revoke her card. So, yes, Federal law does in fact matter. - Mr. Smith - Wednesday, Nov 20, 19 @ 12:01 pm: === but ignore the “shall not be infringed” language in the US Constitution on the 2nd Amendment. Like you ignore the “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” portion of the Second Amendment. - FormerParatrooper - Wednesday, Nov 20, 19 @ 12:09 pm: The briefs are interesting and give a story that one really needs to read. I don’t have a opinion yet. - JS Mill - Wednesday, Nov 20, 19 @ 12:21 pm: =but ignore the “shall not be infringed” language in the US Constitution on the 2nd Amendment.= Apparently you are not aware of numerous USSC decisions that have placed limits on the other important 26 amendments to the constitution. The 4th Amendment is pretty important yet police departments across the country set up “safety checks” all the time without probable cause and seize money and assets without evidence or warrant. But just the gun thing is sacred. /s For what it is worth, I am a gun owner, hunter, and have my CCL. - fs - Wednesday, Nov 20, 19 @ 12:23 pm: ==== Jensen told the justices that the federal law doesn’t necessarily matter to Johnson, as she could easily buy a gun from a non-licensed firearms dealer== Not without a valid foid card she can’t, and compliance with Federal law is a condition the State can use to revoke her card. So, yes, Federal law does in fact matter.== I should add that this revocation seems to be based on a Federal law that’s been in place for 25 years or so. Making that response from the Attorney even more baffling. Her entire revocation was based around Federal law, so of course it matters. - Anyone Remember - Wednesday, Nov 20, 19 @ 12:36 pm: “… misdemeanor battery.” As in domestic violence? If so, then … her position is perpetrators of domestic violence can’t be denied a firearm? - Just Another Anon - Wednesday, Nov 20, 19 @ 1:07 pm: I want to thank @Rich Miller for going above and beyond what most journalistic outlet usually do. My pet peeve is when someone mentions a case or a bill and doesn’t give the bill number of case number (or link to it). It makes life so much easier for the reader who wants to make his or her own opinion based upon the actual language/pleadings. - Chili - Wednesday, Nov 20, 19 @ 1:39 pm: :: Like you ignore the “A well regulated Militia :: In 18th century parlance, Well regulated doesn’t mean what you think it means. and before you pull out the “it only applies to muskets” nonsense, that’s like saying free speech only applies to the spoken word and quill pen. - Candy Dogood - Wednesday, Nov 20, 19 @ 2:35 pm: ===and before you pull out the “it only applies to muskets” nonsense=== The conservative position — coming out of conservative justices have made it pretty clear that the 2nd Amendment wasn’t intended as a “have whatever you want” kind of proposal. Since you bring up muskets, please consider that in the 1790s there were other words to refer to other “weapons systems” commonly deployed. The right to bear arms would not have been intended to include artillery, mortars, carronade, a variety of explosives, et al. The 2nd Amendment shouldn’t be interpreted as the right to own weapons best suited for mass murder, and that is basically what the Heller decision has determined. The 1st Amendment was intended to protect expression and that has not changed. - Candy Dogood - Wednesday, Nov 20, 19 @ 2:50 pm: I’ll admit, this isn’t a case I have readily followed, but this isn’t exactly the dream client. ===”On June 24, 2012, ISP revoked Shawna Johnson’s FOID card under section 8(n) of the Act, 430 ILCS 65/8(n) (eff. Jan. 1, 2012), because she was convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (“MCDV”), and thus prohibited under the Federal Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) (“section 922(g)(9)”), from possessing firearms due to her conviction for battery in 2001 for hitting her then-husband.”=== What’s fascinating is both the presumption that prior to the FOID requirement it’s very likely she may have been inappropriately in possession of a fire arm — and if I skimmed correctly that literally this entire issue is a moot point 20 years after her 2001 conviction. - foster brooks - Wednesday, Nov 20, 19 @ 4:26 pm: isn’t there a case in the court system challenging the constitutionality of the foid card? - revvedup - Wednesday, Nov 20, 19 @ 5:19 pm: To foster brook at 4:26 pm, ref FOID Constitutionality–Yes, there is a case challenging constitutionality, but that isn’t the issue here. See “124100 People State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Vivian Brown, Appellee. Appeal, Circuit Court (White).” on the IL Sup Ct website. Even if the FOID Card Act is struck down, the issue of whether Shawna Johnson was legally barred from possessing a firearm. - FormerParatrooper - Wednesday, Nov 20, 19 @ 6:16 pm: After reading thru the attachments, things don’t add up to me. Ms Johnson, if the facts presented by her attorney, and what the State has not contradicted, may have been a victim of the abuse she was convicted of. If the fact is she was ” fighting-off and trying to flee from her abuser”, she should not have been convicted. My opinion: If you are attacked and you defend yourself, you should not be guilty of a crime if you injure the attacker. The police report used by the SA would offer more information and may be enlightening. She did not have a public defender offered to her, not denied by the State. When she plead guilty she was told by the SA that “that her guilty plea to battery would probably not impact her FOID card, and if it did, it would be only for a short time”. Again, the State has not denied this either. More of my opinion: She seems to have trusted the advice of the SA who was charging her. Lesson here is to have an attorney, even attorneys hire other attorneys to represent them in Court. The sticking point I have is the incident where she admits to striking a babysitter. No background was offered on this incident. Whether I agree with the State or her hinges on a few facts. IMHO, the suit as brought is not what she should be bringing. She should have her conviction reviewed and have evidence not presented come to light and petition for reversal of the conviction. If the conviction van be overturned, this case now would be moot. - truthteller - Wednesday, Nov 20, 19 @ 9:21 pm: The state has every right to legislate on responsible fire arm ownership, the 2nd amendment does not exclude nor has SC decisions Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.