SPRINGFIELD – State police revoked a citizen’s firearm card over trivial conduct from 15 years earlier, according to Supreme Court Justices who gave his card back to him on Nov. 18.
They rejected arguments of state police director Brendan Kelly, including his claim that civil rights don’t include gun rights.
While the Justices grappled with laws of Illinois and California, they kept their focus on plaintiff Thomas Brown.
In 2001, Brown and wife Suzie drove trucks as partners in California.
Away from home, they learned that a customer canceled a shipment.
They pulled over, booked a room, and headed to a bar.
On the way out, Thomas picked Suzie up and dropped her.
They returned to their room, he went to bed, and she smoked on the balcony.
Police who heard from witnesses outside the bar arrested Thomas Brown.
He spent three days in jail on $5,000 bond, and got out by pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence.
He and Suzie divorced on good terms in 2007.
At that point he transported hazardous materials for a LaSalle County business.
He married again in 2010, and wife Kari Brown took shooting classes, practiced with him, learned how to clean a gun, and obtained an Illinois card.
He had obtained one too, and he renewed it in 2013. He checked a No box for whether he had been convicted of domestic battery or anything like it.
In 2016, he tried to buy a firearm, and when state police ran a criminal history they found the California conviction and sent a revocation letter.
He surrendered his firearms and Kari’s firearms to the Putnam County sheriff, and sued to recover them in circuit court.
Circuit Judge Stephen Kouri granted possession of the firearms to Kari Brown.
In 2018, Kouri held a hearing that amounted to trial on the domestic violence charge Thomas Brown didn’t contest in California.
Brown testified that his father gave him a firearm when he was 16, and he taught himself to clean firearms.
At the California bar, he said, “There was a little bit of an argument going on. I picked her up and was carrying her and it was kind of a playful moment in some way and she kind of lost my balance.”
He said she fell on the ground and had a little road rash on her arm. He said he didn’t injure her and she didn’t seek medical treatment or call police.
He said she was as disturbed about what went on as he was. He said he didn’t have much choice and his employer instructed him to plead guilty.
“It was supposed to be court supervision and three years of probation and never be seen of it again,” he said.
He said a juvenile court in Minnesota convicted him of assault in the fifth degree.
He said he received supervision for driving under the influence in 2005.
He said he was charged with battery after a bar fight in 2005, but pleaded that he defended himself and the charge was dropped.
Former wife Suzie backed him up with a statement describing the California event as “picking me up over his shoulder with me climbing down his back.”
“I was not injured, nor do I believe there was any intent to cause injury to me,” she wrote.
She wrote that he possessed weapons after that and she didn’t feel threatened and didn’t believe him to be a danger to her or others.
Wife Kari testified that revocation of his card shocked her, “that something that many years ago has put such a hold on our life.”
She said he was always safe and locked his firearms away.
She said he wasn’t dangerous to her, with or without firearms.
For state police, firearm bureau assistant chief Jennifer Radosevic testified that Brown checked No on domestic violence when he should have checked Yes.
She said consequences could include a perjury charge.
She said she wasn’t aware that in California, a person might possess a firearm ten years after conviction of domestic battery.
Kouri ordered state police to issue a card based on unique circumstances including the fact that guns were lawfully in Brown’s home with state approval.
He found the victim in California disputed the conviction.
Third Circuit appellate judges reversed Kouri, two to one.
At the Supreme Court, Brown claimed federal law that restricts firearm ownership provides an exception for persons who have had civil rights restored.
He argued that California restores the right to possess firearms ten years after conviction and his right was automatically restored in 2011.
State police responded that he never had his civil rights revoked.
The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court without dissent, finding California deemed Brown sufficiently trustworthy to possess firearms despite his conviction.
Justice David Overstreet wrote that the ordinary meaning of civil rights would include firearm rights.
He wrote that if Brown lived in California today, he wouldn’t be prosecuted if he possessed firearms.
He wrote that restoring eligibility by evaluating a person’s future dangerousness was entirely consistent with the provision for restoration of those rights.
“Brown has maintained steady employment for many years as a truck driver without incident and is authorized to transport hazardous materials,” he wrote.
“Brown has not been involved in any occurrences of domestic violence besides the California incident.”
The Justices also rejected a claim that Brown betrayed the public interest by possessing a card when he shouldn’t have.
Overstreet wrote that Brown’s testimony on the California incident wasn’t rebutted and Kouri could reasonably credit it.