Even though the Supreme Court left open the option of regulation to combat the dangers of gun violence in Heller, it is this Court’s opinion that the FOID Card Act goes too far. The Act makes criminals out of law-abiding citizens who are attempting to protect their lives within their homes.
After analyzing all the evidence in this matter, this Court finds that FOID Card Act is NOT substantially related to an important government interest as applied to the Defendant in this case. In addition, the Court finds that any fee associated with the exercising the core fundamental Constitutional right of armed self-defense with the confines of one’s home violates the Second Amendment.
T. Scott Webb
White County Resident Circuit Judge
April 26, 2021
People of the State of Illinois v. Vivian Claudine Brown
[This case started on March 18, 2017. It has taken over four years for this case to get this far. It went to the state Supreme Court once already and may will go back up again. Why aren’t these delays considered unconstitutional?
See also Illinois Circuit Judge T. Scott Webb ruled against Illinois’ Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card requirement on Tuesday and ILL. JUDGE RULES FOID CARD REQUIREMENT UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR GUNS IN HOME.—Joe]
An interesting bifurcation seems to be taking places as some states – via either legislature or the courts – loosen their gun laws, while others tighten.
Seems to me like there will be a buildup of stress somewhere in such a system. I wonder how and when it will be released. And it reminds me, a bit, of the sandpile game.
The long delays to even such a meager portion of justice. (If that’s what you would call it.)
Works wonders for the un-justice system. In a world of instant gratification, Who wants to go through the process? Who has the money?
The truth be known. Anyone that has a law degree hanging on the wall. And can’t understand the plain language of the 2A. Is a criminal. Without the degree one could pass them off as being mentally retarded. But their not. Their criminals. That act retarded for money.
On the other hand one must question one’s own sanity in expecting justice from such a criminal enterprise?
“Why aren’t these delays considered unconstitutional?”
“Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.”
Swap in ‘unconstitutional’ and you get to the same point about ‘profit’.
Lawyers make their living by the number of hours they can bill their clients, and Judges (being lawyers too) are simply providing an opportunity for the lawyers on both sides of a case to make a living.
Making the final ruling by a Supreme Court that something is unconstitutional? Let’s not be hasty now /sarc.
Cynical? Who? Me?
Good point. IIRC, most states have a “speedy trial” requirement criminal cases, partly because dragging it out interminably leads to the necessary witnesses moving or dying.
Civil cases take longer, usually at the behest of the parties, to allow time for research, depositions, etc. Cases involving government seem to take significantly longer, primarily beause one of the parties is “government.”
A plaintiff – or plain Joe or Jane Citizen – who dies, or moves to a different state, not only fails to benefit from whatever delayed positive judgment may occur, but in fact, suffers identifiable damages from such a delay.
If there’s a speedy trial mandate for criminal trials, why is there not a similar requirement for civil cases in which constitutional or legal rights are in question?
This is a criminal case. She was arrested and charged.
“…with [sic] the confines of one’s home…” Surely he meant “within”.
Hah! So, the second amendment doesn’t apply outside the home? Let’s see how well that would go over in regard to the other amendments. Let’s see a high court judge imply that your right to free speech exists only within your home, for example, and see how far he gets with that. Shouldn’t any such hucksters be removed and disbarred, post haste?
To paraphrase a wise man who came before me;
I cannot place my finger on that article in the constitution which limits a person’s rights to the confines of his home.
And for all of you posting comments, please take heed. Is it really so terribly difficult to form proper sentences, use correct punctuation, and to know the difference between “their” and “they’re”, and so on and suchlike? You have the internet at your fingertips. It’s not difficult to learn. Nor is the extra minute it takes to proofread going to change the outcome of your day for the worse.
Maybe this is why so many people so horribly misrepresent the Bible– Maybe they simply do not understand English. But no, surely there’s a lot more to it than that. And so, the simplest explanation is NOT always the correct explanation.