Illinois Firearm Identification card ruled unConstitutional in state court....yes, this is correct.

[2aguy]

Any tax or fee on the exercise of a Right is unConstitutional.....see Murdock v Pennsylvania, and now a judge in Illinois, even with morons in charge of the state, finds the FOID card, unConstitutional.....the card is required in Illinois to own a gun...

Illinois Circuit Judge Rules FOID Card Unconstitutional; Attorney General Reportedly Appealing to IL Supreme Court - The Truth About Guns

The case began with the March 2017 arrest of a now-divorced, 4′ 11″ fifty-something woman for the high crime of possessing a single-shot .22 rifle for self-defense. Obviously, she’s not exactly Bonnie Parker of Bonnie and Clyde fame. She failed to have a FOID card for her rifle, despite eligibility to receive one. In February 2018, a White County judge ruled the FOID Act unconstitutional.

10. In this case the facts show the defendant possessed a gun, in her house, for the purpose of self-defense without a FOID card. To require the defendant to fill out a form, provide a picture ID and pay a $10 fee to obtain a FOID card before she can exercise her constitutional right to self-defense with a firearm is a violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the States and a violation of Article I, Section 22, of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, as applied to this case only.

11. Based upon the forgoing, the Court finds 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) unconstitutional as applied to this case.

Motions and counter-motions poured in, and in October 2018, the judge reaffirmed his ruling and expanded upon it.

3. The Court supplements its ruling of February 2, 2018, as follows:

a. To comply with 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) a person must have a FOID card on their person when in either actual or constructive possession of a firearm or ammunition. Owning a FOID card is insufficient to comply with the statute. See People v. Eldens, 63 Ill.App.3d 554 (Fifth Dist. 1978) and People v. Cahill, 37 Ill.App.3d 361 (Second Dist. Second Div. 1976). A person is in constructive possession of a firearm or ammunition when: (1) The person has knowledge of the presence of a weapon or ammunition, and (2) That person is in immediate and exclusive control over the area where the firearm or ammunition is located.

Due to the language of 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) and the Court’s interpretation of the statute, it is clear that compliance is impossible when one is in ·their own home. No person could have their FOID card on their person 24 hours each and every day when firearms or ammunition are in the house.

In addition, every person in the home (family member, friend, spouse, etc.) who has knowledge of the firearms or ammunition and has immediate and exclusive control of the area where the firearms or ammunition is located, who does not have a FOID card, would be in violation of the statute.

Thus, 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) is unconstitutional, as applied to this defendant, because it is impossible to comply in the person’s .own home. As an alternative, if 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) is constitutional then it becomes obvious the legislature did not intend the ~tatute to apply in one’s own home due to impossibility of compliance.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Holy shit, WOW!!!!

It took them that long?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Makes sense to me. Having to pay for a right is an oxymoron

 

[Toronado3800]

Any tax or fee on the exercise of a Right is unConstitutional.....see Murdock v Pennsylvania, and now a judge in Illinois, even with morons in charge of the state, finds the FOID card, unConstitutional.....the card is required in Illinois to own a gun...

Illinois Circuit Judge Rules FOID Card Unconstitutional; Attorney General Reportedly Appealing to IL Supreme Court - The Truth About Guns

The case began with the March 2017 arrest of a now-divorced, 4′ 11″ fifty-something woman for the high crime of possessing a single-shot .22 rifle for self-defense. Obviously, she’s not exactly Bonnie Parker of Bonnie and Clyde fame. She failed to have a FOID card for her rifle, despite eligibility to receive one. In February 2018, a White County judge ruled the FOID Act unconstitutional.

10. In this case the facts show the defendant possessed a gun, in her house, for the purpose of self-defense without a FOID card. To require the defendant to fill out a form, provide a picture ID and pay a $10 fee to obtain a FOID card before she can exercise her constitutional right to self-defense with a firearm is a violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the States and a violation of Article I, Section 22, of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, as applied to this case only.

11. Based upon the forgoing, the Court finds 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) unconstitutional as applied to this case.

Motions and counter-motions poured in, and in October 2018, the judge reaffirmed his ruling and expanded upon it.

3. The Court supplements its ruling of February 2, 2018, as follows:

a. To comply with 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) a person must have a FOID card on their person when in either actual or constructive possession of a firearm or ammunition. Owning a FOID card is insufficient to comply with the statute. See People v. Eldens, 63 Ill.App.3d 554 (Fifth Dist. 1978) and People v. Cahill, 37 Ill.App.3d 361 (Second Dist. Second Div. 1976). A person is in constructive possession of a firearm or ammunition when: (1) The person has knowledge of the presence of a weapon or ammunition, and (2) That person is in immediate and exclusive control over the area where the firearm or ammunition is located.

Due to the language of 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) and the Court’s interpretation of the statute, it is clear that compliance is impossible when one is in ·their own home. No person could have their FOID card on their person 24 hours each and every day when firearms or ammunition are in the house.

In addition, every person in the home (family member, friend, spouse, etc.) who has knowledge of the firearms or ammunition and has immediate and exclusive control of the area where the firearms or ammunition is located, who does not have a FOID card, would be in violation of the statute.

Thus, 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) is unconstitutional, as applied to this defendant, because it is impossible to comply in the person’s .own home. As an alternative, if 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) is constitutional then it becomes obvious the legislature did not intend the ~tatute to apply in one’s own home due to impossibility of compliance.

And then the bankrupt state said "phew, we can just subpoena Facebook or Google and see who owns what".

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Lefties hate voter i.d.s....call them a "poll tax". But they like an i.d. for gun owners. That's a real disconnect.

Voter forms of identification don't necessarily mean purchasing one from the state. So one more time the left
is hypocritical and inconsistent in what they support depending on if it serves their political agenda or not.

 

[JoeB131]

Lefties hate voter i.d.s....call them a "poll tax". But they like an i.d. for gun owners. That's a real disconnect.

um, yeah, you can't kill people with votes... you can kill them with guns. Happy to have straightened that out for you, you look a little dopey.

 

[Bush92]

Any tax or fee on the exercise of a Right is unConstitutional.....see Murdock v Pennsylvania, and now a judge in Illinois, even with morons in charge of the state, finds the FOID card, unConstitutional.....the card is required in Illinois to own a gun...

Illinois Circuit Judge Rules FOID Card Unconstitutional; Attorney General Reportedly Appealing to IL Supreme Court - The Truth About Guns

The case began with the March 2017 arrest of a now-divorced, 4′ 11″ fifty-something woman for the high crime of possessing a single-shot .22 rifle for self-defense. Obviously, she’s not exactly Bonnie Parker of Bonnie and Clyde fame. She failed to have a FOID card for her rifle, despite eligibility to receive one. In February 2018, a White County judge ruled the FOID Act unconstitutional.

10. In this case the facts show the defendant possessed a gun, in her house, for the purpose of self-defense without a FOID card. To require the defendant to fill out a form, provide a picture ID and pay a $10 fee to obtain a FOID card before she can exercise her constitutional right to self-defense with a firearm is a violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the States and a violation of Article I, Section 22, of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, as applied to this case only.

11. Based upon the forgoing, the Court finds 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) unconstitutional as applied to this case.

Motions and counter-motions poured in, and in October 2018, the judge reaffirmed his ruling and expanded upon it.

3. The Court supplements its ruling of February 2, 2018, as follows:

a. To comply with 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) a person must have a FOID card on their person when in either actual or constructive possession of a firearm or ammunition. Owning a FOID card is insufficient to comply with the statute. See People v. Eldens, 63 Ill.App.3d 554 (Fifth Dist. 1978) and People v. Cahill, 37 Ill.App.3d 361 (Second Dist. Second Div. 1976). A person is in constructive possession of a firearm or ammunition when: (1) The person has knowledge of the presence of a weapon or ammunition, and (2) That person is in immediate and exclusive control over the area where the firearm or ammunition is located.

Due to the language of 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) and the Court’s interpretation of the statute, it is clear that compliance is impossible when one is in ·their own home. No person could have their FOID card on their person 24 hours each and every day when firearms or ammunition are in the house.

In addition, every person in the home (family member, friend, spouse, etc.) who has knowledge of the firearms or ammunition and has immediate and exclusive control of the area where the firearms or ammunition is located, who does not have a FOID card, would be in violation of the statute.

Thus, 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) is unconstitutional, as applied to this defendant, because it is impossible to comply in the person’s .own home. As an alternative, if 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) is constitutional then it becomes obvious the legislature did not intend the ~tatute to apply in one’s own home due to impossibility of compliance.

Illinois, New York, California are a disgrace to the United States.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And then the bankrupt state said "phew, we can just subpoena Facebook or Google and see who owns what".

Why does it bother you that the state cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a right?

 

[Silent Warrior]

Lefties hate voter i.d.s....call them a "poll tax". But they like an i.d. for gun owners. That's a real disconnect.

um, yeah, you can't kill people with votes... you can kill them with guns. Happy to have straightened that out for you, you look a little dopey.

Yeah, right, it isn't as if those elected could start a war........oh, wait. Maybe you should talk to those families that lost members in Viet Nam.

 

[2aguy]

Lefties hate voter i.d.s....call them a "poll tax". But they like an i.d. for gun owners. That's a real disconnect.

um, yeah, you can't kill people with votes... you can kill them with guns. Happy to have straightened that out for you, you look a little dopey.

Tell that to the victims of the socialists voted into power in Europe.....12 million innocent men, women and children murdered with votes.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Any tax or fee on the exercise of a Right is unConstitutional.....see Murdock v Pennsylvania, and now a judge in Illinois, even with morons in charge of the state, finds the FOID card, unConstitutional.....the card is required in Illinois to own a gun...

Illinois Circuit Judge Rules FOID Card Unconstitutional; Attorney General Reportedly Appealing to IL Supreme Court - The Truth About Guns

The case began with the March 2017 arrest of a now-divorced, 4′ 11″ fifty-something woman for the high crime of possessing a single-shot .22 rifle for self-defense. Obviously, she’s not exactly Bonnie Parker of Bonnie and Clyde fame. She failed to have a FOID card for her rifle, despite eligibility to receive one. In February 2018, a White County judge ruled the FOID Act unconstitutional.

10. In this case the facts show the defendant possessed a gun, in her house, for the purpose of self-defense without a FOID card. To require the defendant to fill out a form, provide a picture ID and pay a $10 fee to obtain a FOID card before she can exercise her constitutional right to self-defense with a firearm is a violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the States and a violation of Article I, Section 22, of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, as applied to this case only.

11. Based upon the forgoing, the Court finds 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) unconstitutional as applied to this case.

Motions and counter-motions poured in, and in October 2018, the judge reaffirmed his ruling and expanded upon it.

3. The Court supplements its ruling of February 2, 2018, as follows:

a. To comply with 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) a person must have a FOID card on their person when in either actual or constructive possession of a firearm or ammunition. Owning a FOID card is insufficient to comply with the statute. See People v. Eldens, 63 Ill.App.3d 554 (Fifth Dist. 1978) and People v. Cahill, 37 Ill.App.3d 361 (Second Dist. Second Div. 1976). A person is in constructive possession of a firearm or ammunition when: (1) The person has knowledge of the presence of a weapon or ammunition, and (2) That person is in immediate and exclusive control over the area where the firearm or ammunition is located.

Due to the language of 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) and the Court’s interpretation of the statute, it is clear that compliance is impossible when one is in ·their own home. No person could have their FOID card on their person 24 hours each and every day when firearms or ammunition are in the house.

In addition, every person in the home (family member, friend, spouse, etc.) who has knowledge of the firearms or ammunition and has immediate and exclusive control of the area where the firearms or ammunition is located, who does not have a FOID card, would be in violation of the statute.

Thus, 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) is unconstitutional, as applied to this defendant, because it is impossible to comply in the person’s .own home. As an alternative, if 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) is constitutional then it becomes obvious the legislature did not intend the ~tatute to apply in one’s own home due to impossibility of compliance.

One huge problem. Under Heller V, a City or Township can do exactly that. I can see where a State might have problems with this one. But remember, DC is not a state, it's a Metro or City and laws that apply there does not apply to States. This looks for like a law that should be in Chicago than the entire state. I can see it being used where there is a gun violence problem but not in areas where there aren't.

This will be bounced since it's directed towards the State and not a high gun troubled area. All of Illinois is not high gun crime.

Just remember, I just got the black chopper back out of the shop, got it fueled and the 6 government surplus Armored Personel Carriers are ready for deployment. Make sure you have all your guns numbered, in a neat row and ready for pickup. Since you keep calling me a gungrabber, I think we need to come and collect all your guns. Just yours, no elses under the Red Flag Laws.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Any tax or fee on the exercise of a Right is unConstitutional.....see Murdock v Pennsylvania, and now a judge in Illinois, even with morons in charge of the state, finds the FOID card, unConstitutional.....the card is required in Illinois to own a gun...

Illinois Circuit Judge Rules FOID Card Unconstitutional; Attorney General Reportedly Appealing to IL Supreme Court - The Truth About Guns

The case began with the March 2017 arrest of a now-divorced, 4′ 11″ fifty-something woman for the high crime of possessing a single-shot .22 rifle for self-defense. Obviously, she’s not exactly Bonnie Parker of Bonnie and Clyde fame. She failed to have a FOID card for her rifle, despite eligibility to receive one. In February 2018, a White County judge ruled the FOID Act unconstitutional.

10. In this case the facts show the defendant possessed a gun, in her house, for the purpose of self-defense without a FOID card. To require the defendant to fill out a form, provide a picture ID and pay a $10 fee to obtain a FOID card before she can exercise her constitutional right to self-defense with a firearm is a violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the States and a violation of Article I, Section 22, of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, as applied to this case only.

11. Based upon the forgoing, the Court finds 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) unconstitutional as applied to this case.

Motions and counter-motions poured in, and in October 2018, the judge reaffirmed his ruling and expanded upon it.

3. The Court supplements its ruling of February 2, 2018, as follows:

a. To comply with 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) a person must have a FOID card on their person when in either actual or constructive possession of a firearm or ammunition. Owning a FOID card is insufficient to comply with the statute. See People v. Eldens, 63 Ill.App.3d 554 (Fifth Dist. 1978) and People v. Cahill, 37 Ill.App.3d 361 (Second Dist. Second Div. 1976). A person is in constructive possession of a firearm or ammunition when: (1) The person has knowledge of the presence of a weapon or ammunition, and (2) That person is in immediate and exclusive control over the area where the firearm or ammunition is located.

Due to the language of 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) and the Court’s interpretation of the statute, it is clear that compliance is impossible when one is in ·their own home. No person could have their FOID card on their person 24 hours each and every day when firearms or ammunition are in the house.

In addition, every person in the home (family member, friend, spouse, etc.) who has knowledge of the firearms or ammunition and has immediate and exclusive control of the area where the firearms or ammunition is located, who does not have a FOID card, would be in violation of the statute.

Thus, 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) is unconstitutional, as applied to this defendant, because it is impossible to comply in the person’s .own home. As an alternative, if 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) is constitutional then it becomes obvious the legislature did not intend the ~tatute to apply in one’s own home due to impossibility of compliance.

One huge problem. Under Heller V, a City or Township can do exactly that. I can see where a State might have problems with this one. But remember, DC is not a state, it's a Metro or City and laws that apply there does not apply to States. This looks for like a law that should be in Chicago than the entire state. I can see it being used where there is a gun violence problem but not in areas where there aren't.

This will be bounced since it's directed towards the State and not a high gun troubled area. All of Illinois is not high gun crime.

Just remember, I just got the black chopper back out of the shop, got it fueled and the 6 government surplus Armored Personel Carriers are ready for deployment. Make sure you have all your guns numbered, in a neat row and ready for pickup. Since you keep calling me a gungrabber, I think we need to come and collect all your guns. Just yours, no elses under the Red Flag Laws.

Its weird its been legal for so long and no one challenged it, I remember getting my first card around 1985

.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Any tax or fee on the exercise of a Right is unConstitutional.....see Murdock v Pennsylvania, and now a judge in Illinois, even with morons in charge of the state, finds the FOID card, unConstitutional.....the card is required in Illinois to own a gun...

Illinois Circuit Judge Rules FOID Card Unconstitutional; Attorney General Reportedly Appealing to IL Supreme Court - The Truth About Guns

The case began with the March 2017 arrest of a now-divorced, 4′ 11″ fifty-something woman for the high crime of possessing a single-shot .22 rifle for self-defense. Obviously, she’s not exactly Bonnie Parker of Bonnie and Clyde fame. She failed to have a FOID card for her rifle, despite eligibility to receive one. In February 2018, a White County judge ruled the FOID Act unconstitutional.

10. In this case the facts show the defendant possessed a gun, in her house, for the purpose of self-defense without a FOID card. To require the defendant to fill out a form, provide a picture ID and pay a $10 fee to obtain a FOID card before she can exercise her constitutional right to self-defense with a firearm is a violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the States and a violation of Article I, Section 22, of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, as applied to this case only.

11. Based upon the forgoing, the Court finds 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) unconstitutional as applied to this case.

Motions and counter-motions poured in, and in October 2018, the judge reaffirmed his ruling and expanded upon it.

3. The Court supplements its ruling of February 2, 2018, as follows:

a. To comply with 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) a person must have a FOID card on their person when in either actual or constructive possession of a firearm or ammunition. Owning a FOID card is insufficient to comply with the statute. See People v. Eldens, 63 Ill.App.3d 554 (Fifth Dist. 1978) and People v. Cahill, 37 Ill.App.3d 361 (Second Dist. Second Div. 1976). A person is in constructive possession of a firearm or ammunition when: (1) The person has knowledge of the presence of a weapon or ammunition, and (2) That person is in immediate and exclusive control over the area where the firearm or ammunition is located.

Due to the language of 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) and the Court’s interpretation of the statute, it is clear that compliance is impossible when one is in ·their own home. No person could have their FOID card on their person 24 hours each and every day when firearms or ammunition are in the house.

In addition, every person in the home (family member, friend, spouse, etc.) who has knowledge of the firearms or ammunition and has immediate and exclusive control of the area where the firearms or ammunition is located, who does not have a FOID card, would be in violation of the statute.

Thus, 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) is unconstitutional, as applied to this defendant, because it is impossible to comply in the person’s .own home. As an alternative, if 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) is constitutional then it becomes obvious the legislature did not intend the ~tatute to apply in one’s own home due to impossibility of compliance.

You know the workplace shooter in Illinois a few months back? His FOID card allowed him to legally purchase the weapon he used, but it was the FBI background check which uncovered the felony conviction that made him a prohibited person.

I'm just curious as to whether it would have made a difference if this law had not been in place when he applied and made his purchase. I don't see that it would but it's still kind of interesting the way these laws work in concert.

 

[JoeB131]

Why does it bother you that the state cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a right?

Mostly because I don't think that there's a right for crazy people to own a machine gun hiding in the Militia Amendment.

I do think that the FOID is kind of useless, as they really don't check them, as we saw in the recent Aurora case, where the criminal was able to get one without anyone figuring out that he had done time in MS for stabbing a woman. After he applied for a CCA, they found out about it because someone bothered to look, but no one confiscated his gun, and he shot five of his coworkers.

But since the courts are currently coming up with the bizarre interpretation that the Militia Amendment is about gun ownership, then let's take a simpler approach.

You can sell anyone a gun you want to, but you are held liable for what they do with it. Get rid of the protections gun sellers get when their prime customers go on shooting sprees.

 

[theHawk]

The US Constitution wins, and Democrats lose.

 

[Blues Man]

Lefties hate voter i.d.s....call them a "poll tax". But they like an i.d. for gun owners. That's a real disconnect.

um, yeah, you can't kill people with votes... you can kill them with guns. Happy to have straightened that out for you, you look a little dopey.

You can kill people with just about anything

 

[pismoe]

Holy shit, WOW!!!!

It took them that long?

----------------------------------- that's the BIGGEST problem , the Elite pass these laws , regulations and restrictions and then it takes years and years to get them thrown out or fixed when the rules , yada ,yada should have been recognized as 'uncontitutional' from the moment the laws was proposed .

 

[M14 Shooter]

One huge problem. Under Heller V, a City or Township can do exactly that.

Heller says no such thing.
The state cannot charge a fee for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms any more than it can require a fee for exercise of the right to an abortion, go to church, publish a newspaper, etc.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

 

[Daryl Hunt]

One huge problem. Under Heller V, a City or Township can do exactly that.

Heller says no such thing.
The state cannot charge a fee for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms any more than it can require a fee for exercise of the right to an abortion, go to church, publish a newspaper, etc.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

If it were a Religious Publication as Murdock is addressing I would agree. Murdock has nothing to do with firearms unless you can figure out a way to beat someone to death with a loaded religious pamplet.

 

[M14 Shooter]

One huge problem. Under Heller V, a City or Township can do exactly that.

Heller says no such thing.
The state cannot charge a fee for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms any more than it can require a fee for exercise of the right to an abortion, go to church, publish a newspaper, etc.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

If it were a Religious Publication as Murdock is addressing I would agree. Murdock has nothing to do with firearms...

Murdoch:
- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
- Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant.

These statements are plenary and thus apply to all rights; they are so set apart from the other points because they do not include references to rights specific to the 1st, in contrast to said other points.

Under Heller V, a City or Township can do exactly that.

Heller says no such thing.