Two men who say Illinois government officials illegally suspended their gun ownership rights are back in court arguing the state has no right to ask a judge to put a hold on a permanent injunction blocking State Police from suspending FOID cards of people if they are arrested, while both sides wait for litigation to conclude.
Aaron and Charles Davis made their latest filing April 13 in Madison County, asking Associate Judge Ronald Foster to side with them and against the Illinois State Police firearms services bureau. The men originally sued in February 2021, alleging they improperly lost their Firearm Owner Identification privileges resulting from a July 2016 incident when they were arrested and charged with felony reckless conduct for shooting guns to celebrate Independence Day.
In their original complaint, represented by Thomas Maag of Wood River, the men argued that not only did the conduct alleged fall short of the legal definition of recklessness, they were never convicted of felonies and therefore should never have had their FOID cards revoked. Although the men eventually pleaded guilty to misdemeanor reckless conduct and saw their cards reinstated, they continued legal pursuit of an order barring the state from revoking FOID rights for anything short of a felony conviction.
Thomas Maag
| Maag Law Firm
On March 20, 2023, Foster granted summary judgment in favor of the Davises along with a permanent injunction. Foster wrote the men “were disarmed solely based on an accusation. There was no hearing, such as a bond hearing, to determine whether these plaintiffs were dangerous and, thus, should be disarmed pending trial.”
On April 12, through the Illinois Attorney General’s Office and Assistant Attorney General Martin Plute, of Swansea, the state asked the judge to stay the injunction pending resolution of the Davises’ request to be reimbursed for litigation expenses. That motion argued leaving the injunction in place would leave the public “unduly prejudiced” because of an inability to appeal the ruling to a higher court.
“If a stay is not granted, those who have been charged with a felony, even violent in nature, would be able to possess weapons, contrary to the public interest and safety,” the state said. “A stay is needed to maintain the status quo until a final judgment can be rendered.”
The Davises responded the next day, arguing the state’s motion included “a whole list of horribles” should a judge oblige the government “to actually comply with the Constitution” and arguing the state has means for appealing even while the fee issue awaits resolution.
“The practice of suspending FOID cards for mere charges is certainly not a longstanding policy of defendant,”the Davises said in their response. “The fact that, as is consisted (sic) with federal law, those persons merely charged with a felony, as opposed to being convicted, still will not be allowed to acquire new arms or ammunition, they will only be able to legally keep what they already have. As noted to this court previously, at least one federal court has held that unconstitutional.”
The Davises pointed to Foster’s injunction, which noted a court could deal with those accused of certain felonies through bond conditions, a process that could include evidentiary hearings and specific discussion of firearms restrictions rather than blanket policy.
The injunction, they argued, “is a final judgment on the merits, meaning that this court has already determined (the state’s) position lacks merit” and its conduct violates federal law. They further pointed to the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision not to stay enforcement of trial court injunctions limiting implication of criminal justice reform legislation like the elimination of cash bail.
A hearing on the matter is scheduled in May in Foster's courtroom.