2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,977
- 52,257
- 2,290
Trump is putting in actual judges and Justices in the courts......judges and justices who understand the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and rule that way......This is one of the major reasons that democrats hate Trump and are using fake impeachment against him.....they use the judiciary as an unaccountable legislative body...pasing laws by ruling that they can't get through votes...
Notice that the left wing democrats tried the "you have some Rights, so you don't need the rest..." argument......
IL Supreme Court: Defends 2nd Amendment Civil right ⋆ LooseRounds.com
CHICAGO — The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled a woman’s misdemeanor battery conviction can’t permanently prevent her from registering for a state FOID card and owning a gun, and said the right to keep and bear arms should be considered a civil right, on par with the right to vote, under the state’s firearms regulation.
Shawna Johnson pleaded guilty to misdemeanor battery in June 2001. In 2010, she obtained a Firearm Owners Identification Card, saying a local sheriff advised her she could mark “no” when the form asked her if she had a prior domestic violence conviction. However, she was denied her request to buy a handgun, and the Illinois State Police revoked her FOID card. She then sued in Wabash County Circuit Court in far southern Illinois. A judge ordered her card reinstated, and ruled the state’s FOID law was unconstitutional, as it applied to Johnson.
Justice Mary Jane Theis wrote the unanimous opinion on the ISP’s appeal, issued Jan. 24.
Theis said the question centered on whether granting Johnson a FOID card — which Johnson argued is a proper restoration of her Second Amendment rights — runs contrary to the federal Gun Control Act, which “prohibits the shipping, transport, possession, and receipt of firearms and ammunition by any person ‘who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.’”
The justices noted Johnson’s conviction has not been expunged or overturned, and a 2012 gubernatorial pardon application was rejected. However, Theis pointed to a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Logan v. United States for its description of the “civil rights restored” provision, under which the “government relieves an offender of some or all of the consequences of his conviction.” Theis further explained the state’s FOID Card Act has a specific rights restoration provision by establishing an individual hearing process to determine if the applicant is likely to be a public safety concern.
“Federal courts have not had occasion to recognize a state process like that of Illinois for restoration of firearm rights or to even consider whether firearm rights are ‘civil rights’ as that term is applied under the federal statute,” Theis wrote.
She said courts have typically listed three such civil rights: The rights to vote, serve on a jury and hold elected office. She noted Johnson never lost those rights as a result of her misdemeanor conviction.
The State Police argued that because Johnson never lost the right to vote, sit on a jury or run for office, she isn’t entitled to the restoration exception in the FOID law. But the justices disagreed, saying “a limited ‘three rights’ view is not sustainable.”
“Congress recognized that different states have different laws and procedures for restoring civil rights to people and, depending on the conviction, an offender may lose all, none or some of those rights through different mechanisms,”
Notice that the left wing democrats tried the "you have some Rights, so you don't need the rest..." argument......
IL Supreme Court: Defends 2nd Amendment Civil right ⋆ LooseRounds.com
CHICAGO — The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled a woman’s misdemeanor battery conviction can’t permanently prevent her from registering for a state FOID card and owning a gun, and said the right to keep and bear arms should be considered a civil right, on par with the right to vote, under the state’s firearms regulation.
Shawna Johnson pleaded guilty to misdemeanor battery in June 2001. In 2010, she obtained a Firearm Owners Identification Card, saying a local sheriff advised her she could mark “no” when the form asked her if she had a prior domestic violence conviction. However, she was denied her request to buy a handgun, and the Illinois State Police revoked her FOID card. She then sued in Wabash County Circuit Court in far southern Illinois. A judge ordered her card reinstated, and ruled the state’s FOID law was unconstitutional, as it applied to Johnson.
Justice Mary Jane Theis wrote the unanimous opinion on the ISP’s appeal, issued Jan. 24.
Theis said the question centered on whether granting Johnson a FOID card — which Johnson argued is a proper restoration of her Second Amendment rights — runs contrary to the federal Gun Control Act, which “prohibits the shipping, transport, possession, and receipt of firearms and ammunition by any person ‘who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.’”
The justices noted Johnson’s conviction has not been expunged or overturned, and a 2012 gubernatorial pardon application was rejected. However, Theis pointed to a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Logan v. United States for its description of the “civil rights restored” provision, under which the “government relieves an offender of some or all of the consequences of his conviction.” Theis further explained the state’s FOID Card Act has a specific rights restoration provision by establishing an individual hearing process to determine if the applicant is likely to be a public safety concern.
“Federal courts have not had occasion to recognize a state process like that of Illinois for restoration of firearm rights or to even consider whether firearm rights are ‘civil rights’ as that term is applied under the federal statute,” Theis wrote.
She said courts have typically listed three such civil rights: The rights to vote, serve on a jury and hold elected office. She noted Johnson never lost those rights as a result of her misdemeanor conviction.
The State Police argued that because Johnson never lost the right to vote, sit on a jury or run for office, she isn’t entitled to the restoration exception in the FOID law. But the justices disagreed, saying “a limited ‘three rights’ view is not sustainable.”
“Congress recognized that different states have different laws and procedures for restoring civil rights to people and, depending on the conviction, an offender may lose all, none or some of those rights through different mechanisms,”
