SPRINGFIELD \u2014 The Illinois Supreme Court is being asked to consider the laws of California and the U.S. Constitution in ruling on one man\u2019s eligibility to be issued a Firearm Owners Identification card by the Illinois State Police.
On Thursday the state\u2019s high court heard oral arguments in Thomas Brown v. the Illinois State Police in which Brown is seeking to have his FOID rights restored so he can participate in target shooting, hunting and be able to defend himself, according to a court filing.
The court only heard arguments in the case, with opinions expected later this month or in October.
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 state police to conduct a background check that unearthed a 2001 California conviction on a \u201cmisdemeanor offense of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse\u201d that Brown did not disclose on his FOID application.
In that case, Brown and his then-wife had an argument in a parking lot, after which Brown picked her up, according to the court filing, and she ended up \u201ccrawling down his back\u201d and sustaining \u201cminor road rash,\u201d for which she did not seek medical attention.
Brown spent three days in jail and eventually pleaded guilty and paid a $500 fine because, according to the court filing, \u201cotherwise it would have cost him $5,000 to bail out of jail so that he could fight the case and he was advised by the company that he worked for at the time to take the plea bargain.\u201d
Brown\u2019s lawyer, James R. Angel of May, May, Angel & Harris in Princeton, Illinois, questioned whether Brown knew the arrangement would affect his gun rights. The conviction ultimately qualified as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, prohibiting Brown from possessing a firearm under federal law.
Because Illinois\u2019 FOID Act states that a card may not be issued \u201ccontrary to federal law,\u201d 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 \u201ccivil rights restored\u201d in the jurisdiction that convicted them \u2013 in this case, California.
In a 2020 case, Johnson v. the Illinois State Police, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled gun ownership is a \u201ccivil right\u201d in terms of the federal provision, a precedent cited heavily in Brown\u2019s court filings.
Angel is primarily asking the Illinois Supreme Court to interpret whether a specific California law constitutes a restoration of civil rights. Brown\u2019s 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.
\u201cIf California has a problem with Mr. Brown being able to possess a firearm, California can change its very clear statute,\u201d Angel argued before the court.
Katelin Buell, a lawyer for the attorney general\u2019s office which represents the state police, said California\u2019s 10-year window is \u201ca matter of forbearance, not forgiveness.\u201d
It prevents prosecutors from charging someone convicted of a misdemeanor after 10 years but does not satisfy the \u201ccivil rights restored\u201d exception in federal law, meaning it is \u201cnot a substitute for an affirmative statement of restoration and forgiveness,\u201d according to Buell.
\u201cThe convicting jurisdiction of California employs a different restoration process for civil rights, including firearm rights, than in Illinois, and California would not grant Brown this relief without him first seeking a pardon, which he has not done,\u201d Buell argued.
If the Supreme Court does not determine that the California law equates to a restoration of civil rights, Brown\u2019s lawyers have asked it to consider the case through the lens of the U.S. Constitution.
Specifically, Angel asserted that requiring a person who \u201cposes no risk to the general public\u201d to successfully seek a pardon for a misdemeanor before they can own a firearm is an unconstitutional \u201cperpetual ban\u201d on gun ownership.
The state argued the constitutional question is \u201cpremature\u201d because Brown hasn\u2019t even attempted all non-constitutional alternatives for rectifying the denial, including seeking pardon or expungement.
\u201cIf a pardon\u2019s denied, to the best of my knowledge, you can always apply again,\u201d Angel said. \u201cSo hypothetically that remedy is never met.\u201d
The state also argued the Supreme Court can avoid the constitutional question 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\u2019s 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.
But Brown\u2019s lawyers cited testimony from his current wife, who said he always practiced firearm safety, and a letter sent by his ex-wife, which stated \u201cshe did not believe he was a danger to himself or others,\u201d after the 2001 incident, \u201cand that she believed he was not likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety if his FOID card was restored,\u201d according to the court filing.
Even considering that, Buell said, Brown omitted the 2001 conviction from his FOID application, which is reason enough for a denial.
According to court documents, Brown said he did not divulge the 2001 conviction because he thought he had received court supervision rather than a conviction.
Brown\u2019s case originated in Putnam County, where the court awarded him the FOID card and stated he had met the qualifications in the FOID statute. Angel said that decision was made in part as a response to the positive letter from Brown\u2019s ex-wife and because Brown\u2019s current wife has guns in their home with a court\u2019s permission, indicating a lack of danger because no incidents have occurred.
The state appealed to the 3rd District Appellate Court, which reversed the Putnam County decision in a 2-1 vote.
Justice Robert Carter, who currently sits on the Supreme Court after being appointed to replace Justice Thomas Kilbride in December, wrote the opinion reversing the Putnam County order, which focused on the \u201ccivil rights restored\u201d component rather than the constitutional argument.
\u201cThe exception (to federal law) cannot apply in this case, however, because Brown\u2019s California conviction was never expunged or set aside, Brown was never pardoned for that conviction, and Brown never had his civil rights revoked and restored in California as a result of that conviction,\u201d he wrote.
Carter has recused himself from the Supreme Court\u2019s decision on the case, due to his involvement at the appellate level.<\/p>\n