Illinois judge rules FOID unconstitutional in case of woman who possessed rifle without permission

1
State of Illinois v. Vivian Brown
There is a new chapter in the case of Vivian Brown, the southern-Illinois resident who was charged with having a bolt-action rifle in her home for self-defense without a FOID card. The case was heard and avoided by the Illinois Supreme Court, and remanded with instructions to the parties to basically start over. By then, a new Judge was sitting in the case in White County, and he just issued an opinion reiterating the earlier decision. The FOID Card Act, which requires one to obtain a license and pay a fee to exercise a fundamental right in one’s own home, is unconstitutional. The court noted the following:

“The burden should be on the state to demonstrate that a citizen has committed an act thereby disqualifying them from being in the group of people that already possess a Second Amendment right. Instead, the opposite is true. A citizen in the State of Illinois is not born with a Second Amendment right. Nor does that right inure when a citizen turns 18 or 21 years of age. It is a façade. They only gain that right if they pay a $10 fee, complete the proper application, and submit a photograph. If the right to bear arms ad self-defense are truly core rights, there should be no burden on the citizenry to enjoy those rights, especially within the confines and privacy of their own homes.“

Expectations are that the State will again seek to have the matter heard before the Illinois Supreme Court. David G. Sigale represents Ms. Brown.
Since the judge ruled against the FOID, I suspect the Illinois Supreme Court will hear the case so they can try to turn it around one way or another.

Another FOID case thread:
Illinois lawsuit filed over failure to receive FOIDs in 30 days

Re: Illinois judge rules FOID unconstitutional in case of woman who possessed rifle without permission

4
The burden should be on the state to demonstrate that a citizen has committed an act thereby disqualifying them from being in the group of people that already possess a Second Amendment right.
That is the key: The burden must, rather than should, be on the state to demonstrate when a citizen should be deprived of a right, any right, not just the RKBA.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 2 guests