Always read the decision.
One key component of becoming an informed and involved taxpayer and voter is taking the time to become familiar with reading judicial decisions. No disrespect to my colleagues in the reporting and journalistic analysis communities, but primary source documents bring readers one step closer to being able to ask useful questions and evaluate the perspectives of political figures who gain from having their version of reality be the accepted truth.
Today’s reading list includes the April 29 opinion from the Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court again affirming that the Firearm Owner’s Identification program doesn’t violate Second Amendment rights.
The 2-1 decision in Guns Save Life v. Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly (tinyurl.com/GSL-Kelly) is 94 pages, so put on your reading pants. Justice Thomas Harris wrote the majority. Justice Peter Cavanagh concurred with Harris and wrote his own opinion as well. Justice Craig DeArmond dissented.
Whereas other FOID opinions have focused largely on whether the state is effectively administering the program such that gun rights are preserved – as in, do lengthy clerical delays constitute rights deprivations – this situation considers the question of whether the government has a valid interest in prescreening for gun ownership or whether the constitution demands the state let everyone who wants a gun to own one and then only be empowered to confiscate with just cause.
That’s my summary. DeArmond’s conclusion frames it thusly: “The founders understood almost everyone had the right to keep and bear arms, unless and until there was some basis for removal. The FOID Act presumes no one has the right to keep and bear arms, unless and until the right holder proves otherwise. This is the definition of unconstitutional.”
I’m no lawyer or constitutional scholar, but reading these opinions is instructive. Not just for how judges think, but how lawmakers and administrative officials craft and defend policies. Plenty of topics are considerably more bureaucratic or certainly less of a national host topic, although if you’d like to find people fired up about what constitutes a navigable waterway, they’re not hiding.
“No serious person would characterize voter registration cards as unconstitutional attempts to prevent voting,” Cavanagh wrote, but very serious people will ask you to identify the word “vote” in the Bill of Rights.
Does DeArmond’s version of “almost everyone” include any person presently within the state border? Would someone have to prove American citizenship to possess a gun? The original Constitution doesn’t explicitly define citizenship.
The deeper you get into reading these texts and pondering these questions, especially while holding them up to government writ large, the more it becomes clear that “settled law” is anything but.
Please draw your own conclusions, but gather as much information as possible.
• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.
:quality(70)/s3.amazonaws.com/arc-authors/shawmedia/55aeee77-0609-4323-931a-c6686fff01e6.png)