California law, U.S. Constitution at center of FOID case before Illinois Supreme Court
The Illinois Supreme Court is being asked to consider the laws of the state of California and the U.S. Constitution in ruling on one man’s eligibility to be issued a Firearm Owners Identification card by the Illinois State Police.
The high court heard oral arguments Thursday in Thomas Brown v. the Illinois State Police.
Brown was a FOID cardholder for several years, most recently applying for and being granted renewal in 2013. But in 2016, he tried to purchase a gun at a federal firearm licensee, leading the Illinois State Police to conduct a background check. That unearthed a 2001 conviction in California on a “misdemeanor offense of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse” that he did not disclose on his FOID application, according to a filing before the Supreme Court.
More Illinois news:Senator Durbin said he would support mask, vaccine mandates for local government employees
The conviction ultimately qualified as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, prohibiting Brown from possessing a firearm under federal law. Because Illinois’ FOID Act states that a card may not be issued “contrary to federal law,” the State Police revoked his card upon the failed background check.
Federal law does, however, allow exceptions for gun ownership if a person convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor has had their “civil rights restored” in the jurisdiction that convicted them – in this case, California.
Brown’s legal team specifically noted that California only penalizes gun possession for 10 years following a misdemeanor conviction. That means, they argue, Brown had his civil rights restored under California law in 2011, qualifying him for the federal exception which would in turn qualify him for a FOID card.
But Katelin Buell, a lawyer for the attorney general’s office which represents the Illinois State Police, said California’s 10-year window is “a matter of forbearance, not forgiveness.”
More:Durbin: Millions being spent to protect US Capitol in DC ahead of Saturday protests
If the Supreme Court does not determine that the California law equates to a restoration of civil rights, Brown’s lawyers have asked it to consider the case through the lens of the U.S. Constitution.
Specifically, Brown’s team asserted that requiring a person who “poses no risk to the general public” to successfully seek a pardon for a misdemeanor before they can own a firearm is an unconstitutional “perpetual ban” on gun ownership.
But the state also argued the Supreme Court can avoid the constitutional question altogether by applying the legal principles of the FOID Act, which says ISP can deny a FOID if issuing it would be against the public interest.
In court documents, the state cited Brown’s 2001 arrest, a 2005 DUI conviction in Bureau County, a 2005 arrest for battery in LaSalle County that did not lead to criminal charges, and a 1997 conviction for misdemeanor assault that occurred when he was a minor.
Even considering that, Buell said, Brown omitted the 2001 conviction from his FOID application, which is reason enough for a denial.
Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service covering state government and distributed to more than 400 newspapers statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.