A divided Illinois Supreme Court has refused to tackle whether a person can keep a gun in the privacy of their home without a state permit, saying the court does not have jurisdiction because the case doesn't involve the constitutionality of state gun law.
However, a dissenting justice said this refusal to rule was "meaningless" and "wasteful" of court resources.
The April 2 opinion was penned by Chief Justice Anne Burke, with concurrence from Justices Rita Garman, Thomas Kilbride and P. Scott Neville Jr. Justices Lloyd Karmeier and Mary Jane Theis dissented, with Justice Michael Burke taking no part.
Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Anne M. Burke
| Illinoiscourts.gov
"Contrary to the majority’s suggestion, there is no jurisdictional impediment to our hearing this appeal," Karmeier said.
The case centers on the case of Vivian C. Brown, of White County in southern Illinois.
In March 2017, Brown's estranged husband told police Brown had allegedly fired a gun inside her home, according to court papers. Responding officers found a .22-caliber rifle in Brown's bedroom, but no evidence that the rifle or any other gun had been fired inside the house. Brown said she kept the rifle for self-defense. However, police determined Brown did not have a state-issued Firearm Owners Identification card, which authorizes a person to have a gun under state law. Brown was charged with a misdemeanor.
Brown's attorney, Alan Downen, argued in a circuit court motion that even though Brown did not have a FOID card, she qualified for one. But he went further, arguing it was unconstitutional to require her to have a card to simply keep a gun inside her home, that "most private of areas." Downen added he wasn't contending FOID cards violated the constitution, only that it was "unreasonable" to require one for guns kept in a home for self-protection.
Associate Judge Mark Stanley dismissed the charge. The White County State's Attorney's Office then appealed directly to the Illinois Supreme Court, with Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul's office representing White County.
The high court's majority view, expressed by Chief Justice Burke, was that for the state Supreme Court to render an opinion on the case, the constitutionality of the FOID law had to be in question. Judge Stanley's decision involved "statutory interpretation," not constitutional interpretation. Burke pointed out Stanley tossed the charge on grounds the legislature could not have intended FOID law to be enforced in certain domestic situations, because it would lead to preposterous results.
As an example of such an absurdity, Stanley said a gun owner with a FOID card would turn family members in the household, who lacked FOID cards, into criminals by simply exiting the house and leaving behind an unsecured gun.
Burke said: "The circuit court’s language was clear and unequivocal. The court held that the FOID Card Act did not apply to the act of possessing a firearm in the home as a matter of statutory interpretation and, therefore, could not apply to defendant. This was an alternative, nonconstitutional basis" for Stanley's ruling.
Burke also said that for the Supreme Court to rule on constitutionality, it needed an "established factual record." But such a record was absent, because prosecutors challenged Brown's claim she would qualify for a FOID card if she applied.
Burke sent the case back to circuit court for a new judgment order, which is to dismiss the charge on statutory rather than constitutional grounds. This move will preserve prosecutors' right to have an appellate court review the issue.
In his dissent, Justice Karmeier said Burke's decision was a "meaningless and wasteful act," because the case will inevitably end up again in the high court's lap.
"The majority’s decision resolves this appeal based on an issue no one has raised, decides the issue through misapplication of principles we have no reason to discuss, and remands the case to the circuit court for entry of an order that is clearly meritless and serves no purpose," Karmeier wrote. "Neither the parties nor the interests of justice will be served by this unexpected and pointless exercise."
As far as the incomplete factual record, Karmeier said the necessary facts are in place. He noted the attorney general's office is not complaining in its appeal about any gaps in the record.
Wheaton lawyer David Sigale argued for Brown before the Supreme Court.
The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed a friend-of-the-court brief backing the attorney general's position.
The following filed briefs in support of Brown: State’s Attorneys Stewart J. Umholtz, of Tazewell County, and Brandon J. Zanotti, of Williamson County; six professors of Second Amendment law; an economics professor; the Firearms Policy Coalition; the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; the Millennial Policy Center; and the Independence Institute.