Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Energy Storage Now!
Next Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
Posted in:
* Click here and here for some background on how the Illinois Supreme Court has avoided the direct question of whether the state’s Firearm Owners Identification Card Act is constitutional. They did it again today. This time it was unanimous…
In ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, the circuit court of Madison County declared that section 8(n) of the Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) Card Act (FOID Card Act) (430 ILCS 65/8(n) (West 2016)) was unconstitutional “as applied to persons charged with a felony but not yet convicted of a felony” and enjoined the suspension of FOID cards as to those persons. Because the circuit court’s judgment invalidated a state statute, the appeal was taken directly to this court. For the reasons that follow, we find that plaintiffs lacked standing when they filed the action, so we vacate the circuit court’s judgment and remand with directions to dismiss the action. […]
Plaintiffs, Aaron and Charles Davis, were charged on July 5, 2016, with felony reckless discharge of a firearm. A few days after plaintiffs were charged, the Illinois State Police revoked plaintiffs’ Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) cards pursuant to section 8(n) of the FOID Card Act, which authorizes the revocation of the FOID card of any individual who is “prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms or firearm ammunition by any Illinois State statute or by federal law.”
On November 7, 2016, plaintiffs pleaded guilty to reduced charges of misdemeanor reckless conduct. Both plaintiffs then filed requests for FOID appeals, seeking the return of their FOID cards on the basis that they were no longer subject to felony charges. FOID cards were reissued to Charles and Aaron Davis on May 3 and August 14, 2017, respectively. […]
Plaintiffs sought a declaration that section 8(n) of the FOID Card Act is unconstitutional as applied to persons who are charged, but not convicted, of a felony and an injunction preventing defendant from suspending FOID cards pursuant to section 8(n) of the FOID Card Act based on a felony charge. […]
The circuit court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross-motion. Relying on Koshinski v. Trame, 2017 IL App (5th) 150398, the circuit court found that the case was moot but concluded that it could consider the constitutionality of section 8(n) of the FOID Card Act under the public interest exception to mootness. Based on that discussion, the circuit court held that plaintiffs had standing. The circuit court declared that section 8(n) of the FOID Card Act was unconstitutional as to all persons charged with, but not convicted of, felonies. The circuit court entered a permanent injunction, enjoining defendant from “suspending [FOID] Cards, pursuant to 430 ILCS 65/8(n), [of] persons charged with a felony but not convicted of a felony.” […]
Similarly in the instant case, plaintiffs had a legally recognizable interest during the time their FOID cards were revoked. But plaintiffs did not file suit until after their FOID cards had been reissued. At that time, plaintiffs were no longer deprived of their constitutional right to bear arms and no longer had a legally recognizable interest sufficient to achieve standing. […]
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the circuit court’s judgment holding that section 8(n) of the FOID Card Act is unconstitutional “as applied to persons charged with a felony but not yet convicted of a felony” and enjoining the suspension of FOID cards as to those persons. In entering this disposition, we express no opinion on the merits of the parties’ other arguments.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Sep 19, 24 @ 1:45 pm
Previous Post: Energy Storage Now!
Next Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The IL Sup. Ct. will continue to dodge the FOID issue until SCOTUS rules whether the FOID is constitutional or not. This case may get in a writ of certiorari, because the Court found that if the suit was filed before the FOIDS were re-issued the plaintiff’s 2A rights were violated.
Comment by thisjustinagain Thursday, Sep 19, 24 @ 7:47 pm