The Illinois Way: Pro-2a speech gets your FOID revoked

[pdm]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...s-claims-based-on-gun-seizure-can-go-forward/

Free speech, right to bear arms, search and seizure, and due process claims based on gun seizure can go forward

By Eugene Volokh
March 24 at 9:35 pm

So holds Rhein v. Pryor (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2014). At this stage of the proceedings, there has been no factfinding based on the plaintiffs’ allegations, so one cannot assume that the defendants indeed behaved the way the plaintiffs claim. I quote the case only to show what legal theories can be brought if government officials do indeed act in the ways the plaintiffs allege. Here are the factual allegations; note that a FOID card is a Firearm Owners Identification Card that is required under Illinois law to possess guns.

Read it all.

 

[shipwreck]

Damn that's nuts.

 

[strangenh]

Ah, the beautiful world of bureaucrats who are given just enough authority to want to always fall on the side of caution at the expense of someone else's rights.

The court is letting the 1st A and Due Process claims proceed, which seems pretty straightforward - the 1st A and Due Process claims underlie (and subsume) the others in that the 2nd and 4th claims are based on a response to speech that is alleged to be retaliatory or arbitrary.

I hope the plaintiffs will object to/appeal the removal of the 2nd and 4th claims so that - if the facts show the 1st claim isn't valid (the speech was a threat and the action was not retaliatory or arbitrary), they can perhaps later proceed with the 2nd and 4th claims still being an issue.

 

[exo]

Some of the comments are great.

What a shame that the defendants, if found liable, will not suffer any personal loss. Time to end immunity for state actors.

Boy, do I agree with that. State actors have no fear of violating people's rights because they bear no consequences. As long as there are no consequences, violations will continue.

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[jtnf]

I've read it all, and am not remotely surprised. As long as prosecutorial immunity exists, abuses exists.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What could be more absolute, than default immunity from prosecution?

 

[Palladin]

I hope the cops are working security at Toys R Us when this is over

 

[Bonesinium]

If only they had taken a nap in the house after the seizure you could make an argument for a 3rd Amendment violation too. Violating 1-5 would be pretty impressive. I mean, 1,2,4, and 5 is darn impressive as it is...

 

[Quiet]

Some of the comments are great.





I agree wholeheartedly.

Aren't even state actors liable for civil rights violations?

 

[exo]

Aren't even state actors liable for civil rights violations?

IANAL but there's some threshold that has to be met to void their immunity, and it would seem to be a rare occurrence. Pricks get away with shit all the time.

 

[mav]

One of the commentators mentioned the Adrian Schoolcraft case in NY. If any of it is true, how is it not a Hollywood movie already?

 

[Bonesinium]

One of the commentators mentioned the Adrian Schoolcraft case in NY. If any of it is true, how is it not a Hollywood movie already?

Because it is true and the truth doesn't glamorize police?

 

[Cero]

This is a good case. hopefully plaintiff david wins and these pos pols get taken to the wood shed.