Posted on 07/12/2022 5:02:07 AM PDT by marktwain
In a split 4 to 3 decision, the Illinois Supreme Court has refused to rule on the constitutionality of the Firearms Owner’s IDentification card (FOID) requirements in Illinois. This is the second time the Court has refused to rule on the same case. From the decision:
“Mandates of this court are not to be treated lightly but are to be obeyed.” Id. Where the cause is remanded by this court “with specific directions, the court below has no discretion, but must pursue the mandate” of this court. Chickering v. Failes, 29 Ill. 294, 302-03 (1862). Accordingly, the circuit court’s orders of April 26, 2021, and June 15, 2020, must be vacated. The cause is remanded to the circuit court to reenter the modified order that was originally entered on June 4, 2020, at the direction of this court. On remand, the circuit court shall not entertain any motion from any party, nor take any action other than entering the modified order. Because the circuit court’s orders must be vacated, we do not reach any other issue in this appeal.
The dissent wrote this:
The last time this case was before the court, Justices Karmeier and Theis referred to this court’s remand as an “unexpected and pointless exercise” and a “meaningless and wasteful act.” People v. Brown, 2020 IL 124100, ¶¶ 39, 59 (Karmeier, J., dissenting, joined by Theis, J.) (Brown I). I cannot think of a better description for the remand that the court issues today.
In a move that appears to be unprecedented in Illinois jurisprudence, this court, while expressing no opinion on the merits of the case, forces the trial court to take a particular position on
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Bruen pretty conclusively shows the FOID law in Illinois to be unconstitutional.
“As explained in this interview, Mr Vandermyde says it is damning to the supporters of gun control legislation that the Illinois Supreme Court did not clearly come out and say that the FOID card requirement in Illinois IS Constitutional. “
Read at:
https://www.illinoischannel.org/2020/04/02/10046/
Catfight and judicial smackdown - with prejudice?
Yup. You can't require a license as a presumption for the exercise of a Constitutional right. It would be like requiring a book-buying or newspaper-buying license for the 1st Amendment. It even fails the old means tests because it's simply redundant in light of NICS, and as the Highland Park case show, completely useless.
The sole purpose of the FOID in Illinois is to discourage law-abiding residents from exercising their rights and to provide a list of gun owners for harassment and future confiscation.
They did not want to rule on the case, though they clearly should have. If might go back to them again, because Bruen is so clear.
The dissent (3 of 7 justices) smacked them pretty hard for being so timid.
Ahh. Got it. Thanks!
That's not at all the Demonrat position on the US Supreme Court's mandates.
These libs will never accept the constitution.
One of the cornerstones of Progressive ideology is a disdain for, and rejection of the constraints of the Constitution.
You'd think so, but they'll do whatever is necessary to twist any weasel words to enable them to uphold the FOID. Even if the SC were to say unequivocally "every state must uphold the right to keep and bear arms of every single person not previously disqualified from doing so", they would find a way to ignore it.
I didn't see a direct link to this. Do you have one?
IMO, every article about court rulings should contain a direct link to the actual text of same.
Ignore my last comment sir. It was apparently in the first freaking paragraph! Old eyes and brain here.
I was about to point to the link when I saw you had found it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.