December 12, 2023 Hearings
We are eagerly awaiting the court hearing before Judge Steven P. McGlynn for the United States Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Judge McGlynn will be considering a request for a preliminary injunction
against the registration requirement of the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA).
On the same day, there will be a hearing before the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) in Chicago. Hopefully this will clarify some of the muddle surrounding the PICA Act. As far as the hearing goes with Judge McGlynn, it might take a couple of days or more for him to render a decision. In either
case, we will let you know the outcome as soon as we know.
Illinois Supreme Court Rules FOIA of FOID Information Not Allowed
The Illinois Supreme Court says people cannot file public records requests to get information about their Firearm Owners ID card.
In September, the Illinois Supreme Court heard a case brought by two individuals who used the Freedom of Information Act to try and get records regarding why their FOID cards were either revoked or suspended. During oral arguments, Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis raised the prevailing point that was ultimately issued unanimously Thursday.
“These documents are not subject to FOIA, can’t be inspected or copied, but there are other avenues that people can get information,” Theis said. Representing the plaintiffs, attorney Thomas Maag said getting such information by calling Illinois State Police is not efficient. “I invite this court to go to their website and dial the telephone number and see how many hours it takes to get a person, if you even can,” Maag argued.
In Thursday’s unanimous decision siding with Illinois State Police in blocking the FOID card information release, even to those individuals who made the request about their information, the justices said they agree the law does not provide any exemption for individuals who are seeking their own information, even if the individual provides consent for the disclosure.
After Thursday’s ruling, the lower court’s judgment was reversed.
Permit to Purchase Requirements Look Vulnerable
We don’t require a permit to exercise any of our rights. The closest we see in most cases is registering to
vote.
Guns are different, but they shouldn’t be. I’m just stating that they are. Americans who want to buy a gun must jump through a series of hoops to do so.
In some states, though, it’s worse. You must have a permit to purchase a firearm at all. This is the case in Maryland. A
federal court overturned a Maryland law requiring a such a permit. The court found it was inconsistent with the standards laid down in the Bruen decision. This may spell bad news for similar laws across the nation. In Illinois, you must have a FOID card to purchase or possess a firearm. Can the requirement that you must have a FOID card be far behind? If the Maryland decision is upheld by the Supreme Court, my guess is that the FOID card will go away.
Maryland argued that its law fits a tradition of disarming “dangerous” individuals, such as people with felony records, illegal drug users, and people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.
Writing in dissent, Judge
Barbara Milano Keenan highlighted the Supreme Court’s distinction between “may issue” laws like New York’s, which required carry-permit applicants to demonstrate “proper cause,” and “shall issue” laws, which make permits available to all applicants who meet “objective criteria.”
While the Supreme Court did indicate that “shall issue” laws could be consistent with the Second Amendment, it also
noted that “any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends.” It therefore did not rule out “constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”
Federal Judge Strikes Handgun Sales Ban For 18-20 Year
Olds In West Virginia
A federal district court judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal law prohibiting handgun sales to 18-20 year-olds is “facially unconstitutional” and granted a summary judgment in a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation.
U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas S. Kleeh enjoined the
defendants — in this case the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF Director Steven Dettelbach, and Attorney General Merrick Garland — from enforcing the provisions “against Plaintiffs and otherwise-qualified 18-to-20 year-olds.”
“This is a huge victory for Second Amendment rights, especially for young adults,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. Recently, several
courts have ruled that a person’s civil rights are fully vested at age 18.
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb notes “At that age historically, young adults were considered mature enough to serve in the militia, the military, and take on other responsibilities.”
