* From September…
The [Illinois Supreme Court case] case stems from two people requesting public records regarding why their FOID cards, a state-issued identification required in Illinois to own or buy firearms and ammunition, were either revoked or suspended. The plaintiffs’ FOIA requests to Illinois State Police were denied. After challenges, the case made it to the Illinois Supreme Court on Tuesday.
Illinois State Police attorney Valerie Quinn said that they can’t release such personal information through FOIA and the proper way to request such information is through the Firearms Services Bureau.
“No one is trying to keep people’s personal applications and denial letters a secret from them but the Firearms Services Bureau needs to be able to verify that you are who you say you are before releasing copies of your confidential information,” Quinn said. […]
Representing the plaintiffs, attorney Thomas Maag said going through the FSB isn’t conducive.
“They don’t answer the telephone for hours at a time. They don’t answer emails for days and or weeks at a time,” Maag said. “I invite this court to go to their website and dial the telephone number and see how many hours it takes to get a person, if you even can.”
They’re not a third party seeking their own address or other personal information, Maag said.
* The Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling today, with Justice Joy Cunningham writing the opinion…
The appellate court agreed with the trial court that the legislature’s use of the plural terms “names” and “people,” rather than the singular terms “name” and “person”, meant the exemption set forth in section 7.5(v) does not apply to a request for one’s own FOID card information. According to the appellate court, the term “people,” by its plain meaning, necessitates more than a single individual. To interpret section 7.5(v) as applying to a request for one’s own information, the court concluded, would render the term “people” meaningless. […]
The appellate court then rejected ISP’s argument that there is no way for it to verify that the FOIA requester is, in fact, the person whose information is being sought, finding it “unpersuasive as the individual’s written FOIA request, by necessity to identify the application and denial letter sought, should provide ISP with sufficient information to demonstrate that the requester was seeking his/her own information.” According to the appellate court, if the request is insufficient, additional verifying information could be required before release of the information. […]
ISP contends the appellate court erred in its interpretation of section 7.5(v). According to ISP, section 7.5(v) is a blanket exemption prohibiting the disclosure of all FOID card information under FOIA, and there is no exception for individuals who are seeking their own information. We agree. […]
In support of its interpretation of section 7.5(v), the appellate court emphasized that the statute uses the plural terms “names” and “people” and, therefore, must not exempt from disclosure an individual’s request for his or her own information. However, section 1.03 of the Statute on Statutes provides that “[w]ords importing the singular number may extend and be applied to several persons or things, and words importing the plural number may include the singular.” This is a well-settled principle of statutory construction. […]
Section 7(1)(b), in turn, states that “[p]rivate information” is exempt from disclosure [under FOIA] “unless disclosure is required by another provision of this Act, a State or federal law, or a court order.” Here, there is no dispute that no state or federal law or court order requires the disclosure of FOID card information. Accordingly, we conclude the appellate court erred in holding that an individual may consent to disclosure of his or her FOID card information under FOIA.
…Adding… Somebody just pointed something out to me via text…
I get it, they were FOIAing their own info. But I don’t think the FOIA law makes that distinction. Once you release something through FOIA it is a public record. I don’t think you can release it to one person and then say no to everyone else. That seems to be counter to what FOIA is about.
Yeah. Maag and the other courts seemed to have a profound misunderstanding about what FOIA is.
- We've never had one before - Thursday, Nov 30, 23 @ 10:18 am:
Maag is right, you just cannot get through on the phone using the official channels. The only way in is if you know a guy, or gal.
- Norseman - Thursday, Nov 30, 23 @ 10:26 am:
I always understood the interpretation of the terms to be the same as the Supremes unanimously concluded. It concerns me that the Circuit and District courts couldn’t get it right.
The Statute on Statutes is always your friend when it comes to statutory interpretation.
- Donnie Elgin - Thursday, Nov 30, 23 @ 10:31 am:
It might be good law - but it exposes the problem of letting unelected administrative agencies control access to vital information. I’m sure ISP will do nothing to fix the problem as they are not motivated now. Citizens are left With no viable way to address inefficiency- just take it.
- jimbo - Thursday, Nov 30, 23 @ 10:32 am:
“see how many hours it takes to get a person, if you even can.”
So basically like my health insurance, hospital billing, mobile provider, etc., etc.
- Homebody - Thursday, Nov 30, 23 @ 10:53 am:
The statutory exception in 7.5(v) seems very explicit. No surprise that this is a unanimous decision.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Nov 30, 23 @ 10:53 am:
==but it exposes the problem of letting unelected administrative agencies control access to vital information.==
Who would you like to be in control of information? Agencies have the records. You want agencies to turn over all of their documents to some individual elected to oversee them?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 30, 23 @ 11:01 am:
===Who would you like to be in control of information? ===
Just standard word salad ugga bugga
- Retired ISP D11 - Thursday, Nov 30, 23 @ 11:01 am:
The ISP FSB and the FOID operation is a mess. My FOID renewal process took forever and I am a retired ISP sworn officer in good standing. I was unable to contact anyone for help until talking to a current ISP officer who was able to help me contact the right person. If it was that hard for me, I can only imagine what a normal, law abiding citizen has to go through.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Nov 30, 23 @ 11:08 am:
=it exposes the problem of letting unelected administrative agencies control access to vital information. I’m sure ISP will do nothing to fix the problem as they are not motivated now. Citizens are left With no viable way to address inefficiency- just take it.=
So you want every position to be elected?
The real work of government is not accomplished via elected officials. They create work, that is for sure. We absolutely need these “unelected” (seriously what a silly point) professionals to do the work. It is not their fault that they are understaffed.
- Dog Lover - Thursday, Nov 30, 23 @ 11:10 am:
“Word salad ugga bugga” made me laugh. Thank you for that. It is so hard to speak to a human at places like those mentioned and there is so much bad news and seriousness everywhere, a laugh feels so good.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 30, 23 @ 11:13 am:
===seems very explicit===
It is. This was a slam dunk case that went the wrong way twice.
- Elmer Keith - Thursday, Nov 30, 23 @ 11:19 am:
I’m glad that it isn’t easy to get FOID info, as I wouldn’t want the general public to have access to firearm owner residence information.
What worries me is who’s going to have access to registered “assault weapon” ownership info, when that takes effect in January. I wonder if the ISP will guard that registration info as zealously.
- fs - Thursday, Nov 30, 23 @ 11:31 am:
==I’m sure ISP will do nothing to fix the problem as they are not motivated now.==
I might argue this puts more pressure on firearms services to move quicker. If foia were left as an option, they might’ve just pushed more responsibility on that (which would require more resources on that division).
- Amalia - Thursday, Nov 30, 23 @ 12:02 pm:
so the side of the equation that is afraid information will be spilled is angry that information cannot be spilled. ok then.
- We've never had one before - Thursday, Nov 30, 23 @ 12:06 pm:
>>>>I wonder if the ISP will guard that registration info as zealously.
We’ll have to see. Waiting for John O’Connor (AP) to FOIA the PICA affidavits.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Nov 30, 23 @ 12:33 pm:
=Just standard word salad ugga bugga=
You just broke my brain Rich.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 30, 23 @ 1:11 pm:
===Maag is right, you just cannot get through===
He may be right on that, but he’s obviously wrong on the law.
- thisjustinagain - Thursday, Nov 30, 23 @ 2:08 pm:
To Rich’s “world salad ugga bugga”: “Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish….”
To the post: “A right delayed is a right denied”, and actionable by the US Supreme Court. Time to apply this to ISP and Illinois failed CCL/FOID system, including the post-denial admin review process. If you don’t why you were denied, how can you mount an effective appeal??
- unafraid - Thursday, Nov 30, 23 @ 2:28 pm:
No doubt about it. People wanting this information will have a very difficult time. Purposeful? Make up your own mind, but I would certainly lean in that direction.
I suggest contacting your local legislator and have then put pressure to get your information. This may take repeated times and a lot of effort for something that should be provided to our citizens.
When you contact your legislator give them the background provided in this piece and have them work on solving the problem.